ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The issue raised in both the appeals is the same. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being disposed of under this common order.
2. The appellants are a manufacturer of Colour Picture Tubes. Such tubes are sold as original equipment to colour television manufacturers. In the present proceedings, certain picture tubes found in the appellant’s factory (384 Nos.) and certain picture tubes in transit (208 Nos.) have been confiscated on the ground that they were clandestinely manufactured.
3. The appellants’ contention was that these Colour Picture Tubes had been returned by T.V. manufacturers for repair and they had been subjected to process of repair and no duty is attracted on repair. The appellants also produced return D-3 declarations filed before the Central Excise Authorities at the time of receipt of these from the T.V. manufacturers. They also rely on their register relating to repair of such items. The explanation of the appellants was rejected with the observation that during investigation these documents were not produced.
4. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants is that return of a certain quantity of colour picture tubes on account of detects is common and the appellant carry out the repair work and return them to the original buyers. The ld. Counsel has emphasised that such receipt of items for repair is permitted under Central Excise Rules, 173H and in the present case, the transactions remained fully proved by the 57F(3) invoice of the sender. D-3 intimations, the register of repair, and the despatch invoices. He has also pointed out that a similar issue had come up between the parties before the Tribunal in case of Hotline CPT Ltd. v. CCE, Indore and the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee.
5 The ld. SDR would point out that the return of the colour picture tubes is not being established by correlating with the Sl.Nos. of originally cleared picture tunes and repaired ones. According to the learned SDR, the appellants” explanation cannot find acceptance on account of this gap in correlation.
6. We are not able to agree with the Revenue. Sl.Nos. are not being entered in any of the transactions from first clearance onwards. There fore, a serial number-vise correlation of picture tubes cannot now be asked for. The transactions is otherwise established through contemporaneous documentary evidence Further, there is no evidence on record contrary to the documentary evidence about return and repair. In these circumstances, the allegation that these goods arc newly manufactured goods requiring payment of central excise duty has no merit. The issue, including the question of serial number had come up before this Tribunal in the earlier case and the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee.
7. In view of what is stated above, the appeals are allowed, with consequential relief to the appellants.
Order dictated & pronounced in open Court on 18.5.2006.