Repair by replacement of parts is not manufacture; recorded transactions also defeat extended limitation for excise demand.

Extensive replacement of damaged parts in restoring a transformer was held to remain repair, not manufacture, because no new excisable product came into existence; the restoration therefore did not attract central excise duty. The document also states that the extended limitation period could not be invoked, as the transaction was recorded in the books and communicated to excise authorities, while non-disclosure of insurance claim details was not a statutory requirement and did not amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty did not survive and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether restoration of a damaged transformer by replacement of parts amounted to manufacture of a new excisable product or remained a repair activity; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Issue (i): Whether restoration of a damaged transformer by replacement of parts amounted to manufacture of a new excisable product or remained a repair activity.

Analysis: The factual findings of the lower authorities themselves showed that the transformer was not replaced by a new one, but was restored by substantial repairing and replacement of damaged parts. The extent of damage, the insurance assessment of constructive loss, and the quantum of compensation did not convert a repair into manufacture. Rule 173H recognized that repair-related processes such as re-conditioning and re-making may involve extensive replacement of parts, but the nature of the activity remained repair unless a new product was actually brought into existence.

Conclusion: The activity was repair and not manufacture, and no central excise duty was payable on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The appellant had recorded the transaction in its books and intimated the matter to the Central Excise authorities. Non-disclosure of the insurance claim or survey report was not a statutory requirement and could not, by itself, be treated as suppression of facts or as conduct evidencing intent to evade duty. The material on record did not justify invocation of the proviso to Section 11A.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable, and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the duty demand and penalty did not survive, and consequential relief followed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Extensive replacement of parts in restoring damaged goods does not amount to manufacture where the original equipment is repaired and restored, and absence of a statutory duty to disclose ancillary insurance matters cannot be treated as suppression of facts for invoking the extended period.

---