1996 (5) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... out under Rule 173H were found to fetch higher price by reason of the change of the model. The learned lower authority has held in this connection as under : "The appellants argue that they could have carried out the rectification processes in their own depot. But as things stand, they chose to avail of Rule 173-H procedure and filed D3 intimation to bring back the duty paid goods. As seen from the D3s, pre-authenticated GP1s, the motor cycles are cleared at a higher value is in order. The reliance placed by the apellants on Notification No. 217/86, dated 2-4-1986 is misplaced, since the notification speaks of exemption to modvat items if used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer in the manuf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... except to say that by virtue of the change of the model a new product has come into existence, and therefore the demand of differential duty is maintainable in law. 4. We have considered the pleas made. We observe that the Central Excise authorities allowed the appellants the facility under Rule 173H. There is nothing in record to show that his facility was wrongly given to the appellants. Under Rule 173H the appellants are permitted to bring in the goods which need to be re-made, refined, re-conditioned, repair or subjected to any similar processes in the factory. In the present case the appellants obviously has done some modifications of the machine resulting in the change of the model. The goods which emerged as a result of the ....