TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the Appellants manufacture equipment for glass industry; that at times they undertake repair/reconditioning/overhauling of the duty paid machinery received back from the buyers; that the item, received for overhauling is mostly the 'modules' of glass farming IS machine; that the 'module' is in the form of a section box/housing fitted with mechanisms; that for overhauling, these mechanisms are taken out from the housing, dismantled into individual parts which are cleaned with diesel; the parts are then checked to determine as to which of them can be re-used and which cannot be used at all, the parts are segregated in two categories - usable and non-usable, the old retrieved usable parts and new parts are then assembled into v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicating Authority. 3. He, further, mentioned that the demand of duty pertains to the period from 1996-97 to 2000-2001 which is hit by time-limit as specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act as the show cause notice was issued on 28-6-2001; that there was no suppression of facts or misdeclaration by the Appellants with an intent to evade payment of duty; that the declaration in D-3 was submitted; that they have maintained Form V account and furnished intimation of the receipt to the Range Office in respect of each consignment; that moreover their factory has been working for more than 20 years and is being visited by audit and other officers who have never raised with regard to the absence of serial number or identification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss Industries Ltd. which is apparent from D-3 declaration filed by them; that the Appellants in fact are retrieving usable parts from the old mechanism received by them and are using such parts in the assembly of modules; that such a process undertaken by them does not amount to reconditioning or repair but it amounts to manufacture as a new module is assembled by them; that the identity of the goods received is completely lost after the processes undertaken by the Appellants; that further, module had been received after the expiry of the prescribed period of one year under the proviso to Rule 173H(2); that in some cases, goods have been received for so called overhauling even after the period of more than 20 years from the date of manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a distinctive name, character and use." The Supreme Court again in J.G. Glass case, supra, laid down a two fold test for deciding whether the process is that of manufacture. The first test is "whether by the said process a different commercial commodity comes into an existence on whether the identity of the original commodity ceases to exist." This test, in our opinion, is not satisfied in the present matter as a different commercial commodity does not come into existence as a result of the process undertaken by the Respondents. After the processes undertaken by the Appellants, module remains a module and no new commodity comes into existence. As no new commercial commodity comes into existence as a result of process employed by the Appell....