2004 (6) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. There is a duty demand of over Rs. 12.7 crores under two orders-in- original No. 1/04 to 7/04, dated 24-2-04. These demands are in respect of cars brought back to the appellant's factory for the purpose of repair/re-making. Some of the cars had originally been cleared for export while others were cleared for domestic consumption. Upon their return, the cars were subjected to repairs/re-making and thereafter, either exported or sold in the domestic market. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that whenever the goods were cleared after repair/re-making for domestic consumption, the appellants had discharged the duty. Under the impugned orders, duty demands have been confirmed in respect of cars cleared for export (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso. He has contended that the Commissioner's order was legally correct and that there was no irregularity involved in separating claims under Rules 173L and 173H for the purposes of decision. 6. The duty demand in regard to goods originally cleared for domestic consumption which had been returned for repair/re-making had come up before this Tribunal earlier in appeal filed by this appellants and we had disposed of that appeal under Final Order No. 332-333/-02 in Appeal No. 2524/01 [2002 (146) E.L.T. 427 (Tribunal)]. We had specifically held that the appellants are entitled to benefit under Rule 173L and had remanded the case to the lower authorities for reconsideration in the light of provisions of that Rule. It is evident that the Comm....