https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53245 Central excise duty was not attracted on transformers sent back for repair and cleared after repair because the record did not show that the work amounted to manufacture or that any new transformer came into existence. A mere procedural lapse under the repair-return mechanism could not trigger the charging provision where the goods were only repaired. Penalty was also not sustainable because the goods were covered by a general relaxation for repair outside the place of manufacture, the intimation had been filed, and the eventual repair and removal showed no basis for penal action solely on delay or failure to obtain extension. The impugned orders were set aside. en-us Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:33:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53245 Central excise duty was not attracted on transformers sent back for repair and cleared after repair because the record did not show that the work amounted to manufacture or that any new transformer came into existence. A mere procedural lapse under the repair-return mechanism could not trigger the charging provision where the goods were only repaired. Penalty was also not sustainable because the goods were covered by a general relaxation for repair outside the place of manufacture, the intimation had been filed, and the eventual repair and removal showed no basis for penal action solely on delay or failure to obtain extension. The impugned orders were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53245