https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113224 Excise duty was held not to arise on a machine cleared after repair or modification where its essential identity remained unchanged. The machine had been received back under D-3 declaration and retained the same model and serial number, while the altered features did not change its basic character as a punch press machine. Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was read as not requiring repaired or reconditioned goods to be returned only to the original person from whom they were received. The Revenue's contention that a different machine had come into existence was rejected. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 14:17:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113224 Excise duty was held not to arise on a machine cleared after repair or modification where its essential identity remained unchanged. The machine had been received back under D-3 declaration and retained the same model and serial number, while the altered features did not change its basic character as a punch press machine. Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was read as not requiring repaired or reconditioned goods to be returned only to the original person from whom they were received. The Revenue's contention that a different machine had come into existence was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113224