TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (9) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shnamurthy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The appellant received for repairs in its factory a water cooler which has been manufactured, not by it, but by another manufacturer. It received the cooler in October, 1986, repaired it and sent it out of the factory in September, 1987. It paid duty on the cooler when it was cleared. Subsequently, it claimed ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t into the factory for any of the purposes specified in sub-rule (1) was not manufactured in that factory. It raised the contention before the Collector (Appeals) and challenged the finding of the Assistant Collector that this interpretation of Rule 173H was confirmed by the fact that the rule was amended in May, 1988 to specifically incorporate the words "the goods whether manufactured in his fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be considered to be clarificatory. 4. The rule as it stood on the date on which the goods were brought in, and on the date on which the goods were cleared on payment of duty read as follows : (1) "The assessee may, subject to such condition as may be specified by the Collector, may retain, or bring into, its factory or warehouse goods on which duty has been paid if such goods... n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust have been paid by him. Nor is there anything in the words of sub-rules (1) and (2) that implies such a view. This supports to the conclusion that the amendment was clarificatory, but that is not the matter that we are addressing. On the date on which the goods were brought on repair, there was nothing in the rules that prohibited their being brought in. 6. This would be sufficient to d....