TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the department had proved that the air-conditioners received by the assessee for repairs were not the same goods returned after repair or that the process amounted to fresh manufacture, so as to sustain the duty demand.
Analysis: The assessee asserted that the goods were brought into the factory for repairs, declarations were filed, the officers had inspected the goods, and the department had taken no effective steps when the transaction was within its knowledge. The adjudication order proceeded on suspicion that new parts had been fitted and that the cleared goods were different from those received, but it did not record satisfactory proof of fresh manufacture or identify the goods with particulars showing that the assessee's explanation was false. In a case resting on alleged removal of duty-liable goods after repair, the department had to establish its case by reliable evidence, and mere conjecture, delay, or adverse inference from the time taken for repairs was insufficient.
Conclusion: The department failed to prove the demand conclusively, and the duty demand was not sustainable against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the demand order was set aside, with the assessee held not liable for the disputed duty.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are shown to have been received for repairs, duty cannot be demanded on the basis of mere suspicion of fresh manufacture; the department must prove by cogent evidence that the returned goods were different or that manufacture in fact took place.
TaxTMI 
