Identity of re-imported goods governs duty-free exemption on repaired machinery; inadequate findings cannot defeat relief.

Duty-free re-import under Notification No. 158/95 depended on establishing that the goods re-imported were the same machines earlier exported for repair. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating and appellate authorities had passed cryptic, non-speaking orders and had not properly considered the examination report, machine marks and numbers, affidavit evidence, or correspondence showing repair and reconditioning under Central Excise supervision. It also noted that the jurisdictional excise authorities had permitted export after repair and there was no material of manipulation or substitution. The exemption was therefore admissible, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether re-imported machines were entitled to duty-free clearance under Notification No. 158/95 despite being received in burnt condition and despite the dispute regarding identity of the exported and re-imported goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that exemption on re-import depended on satisfaction regarding identity of the goods, but the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority had passed cryptic and nearly non-speaking orders without properly considering the evidence, including the examination report, the marks and numbers found on the plates of the machines, the affidavit filed by the appellant, and the correspondence showing repair and reconditioning under the supervision of the Central Excise authorities. The record also showed that the jurisdictional excise authorities had allowed export after repair without disputing that the same machines had been returned for repair. There was no material to suggest manipulation or substitution of other machines.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 158/95 was admissible, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---