Reprocessing versus fresh manufacture and unresolved limitation plea require fresh appellate adjudication on the evidence

Returned goods cleared after processing required a clear factual determination on whether they were merely reprocessed under Rule 173H or had emerged from a fresh manufacturing process. The appellate authority had not made a definite finding, and its reasoning was only tentative, so the issue was set aside for reconsideration on the evidence. A separate limitation plea had also been raised before the appellate authority but not decided, so that question too required adjudication. The matter was restored for fresh decision after hearing the assessee and considering the materials on record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding that the returned goods were freshly manufactured goods, and not goods reprocessed under Rule 173H, required reconsideration by the appellate authority; (ii) Whether the plea of limitation, raised before the appellate authority, also required a finding.

Issue (i): The record showed that the appellate authority had not recorded a clear and definite finding on whether the goods cleared after return were merely reprocessed goods or products obtained by a fresh manufacturing process. The reasoning adopted was only tentative and prima facie in nature, and the matter called for closer examination on the evidence and materials relied upon by the assessee.

Conclusion: The finding on reprocessing versus manufacture was set aside for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): The plea of limitation had been specifically raised before the appellate authority, but no finding had been returned on it.

Conclusion: The limitation plea also required adjudication by the appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The matter was restored for fresh decision by the appellate authority after hearing the assessee and considering the evidence, with the earlier order not sustained.

---