1993 (2) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 26/89 CCE (BRD), dated 6-2-1989 allowing partly the appellant's appeal. 2. The appellants received one duty paid 550 KVA Transformer for repairs/reprocessing on 20-7-1985, which was later on cleared by them on 1-2-1986 without payment of duty. However this transformer was cleared after a period of 6 months from the date of its receipt. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e ground that no evidence has been produced to show that they sought and obtained the extension of the period. Hence the demand is confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) with the liberty to redetermine the duty leviable under Notification No. 77/85. 3. After hearing Shri Tandon (since the respondents have dispensed with personal appearance) and after perusing the appeal memorandum and the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovisions of substantive law. As regards the other objection it is not quite clear as to whether in this case there is a re-manufacture of a transformer of 550 KVA to 800 KVA after the re-entry of the goods. The show cause notice as well as the adjudication order do not bring out the position clearly. If it is a case of re-manufacture, then obviously Rule 173H may not be applicable, in which case t....