https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125707 Duty demand could not be sustained merely on the basis of an alleged procedural lapse where goods were received for repair under Rule 173H and re-cleared after repairs. The notice was found to be cryptic and vague, and the record showed that repairs were actually carried out and duty had been paid on replaced components. In the absence of any allegation or finding that the goods were in fact freshly manufactured goods cleared under the guise of repair, a procedural infraction alone was insufficient to uphold the demand. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:52:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125707 Duty demand could not be sustained merely on the basis of an alleged procedural lapse where goods were received for repair under Rule 173H and re-cleared after repairs. The notice was found to be cryptic and vague, and the record showed that repairs were actually carried out and duty had been paid on replaced components. In the absence of any allegation or finding that the goods were in fact freshly manufactured goods cleared under the guise of repair, a procedural infraction alone was insufficient to uphold the demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125707