Returned goods cannot be counted twice in clearance value calculations for excise exemption eligibility under the notification.

Returned goods reprocessed and cleared again under Rule 173L could not be counted twice in computing aggregate clearance value for exemption eligibility under Notification No. 38/97. The notification provided no express basis for including the value of the same goods a second time, and the revenue approach would have duplicated the value of identical clearances. On that reasoning, the value of goods originally cleared, later rejected by customers and returned, had to be excluded from the clearance calculation, and the demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value of goods originally cleared, later rejected by customers and returned under Rule 173L, could be included again in the value of clearances for determining eligibility under Notification No. 38/97 dated 27-6-1997.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the notification permitted inclusion of the value of returned goods in the aggregate value of clearances. The goods had been cleared, returned after rejection, reprocessed, and cleared again in accordance with Rule 173L. The governing notification did not contain any legal basis for counting the same goods twice, and the revenue's approach would have resulted in duplicating the value of the very same clearance.

Conclusion: The value of returned goods could not be added again for computing the clearance value under the notification, and the demand was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express statutory authority, the same goods cannot be included twice in the computation of clearance value for excise exemption or valuation purposes.

---