No time limit under Rule 173H for removal of repaired goods; trade notice cannot impose a six-month restriction.

Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules did not impose any time limit for removal of goods after repair or reconditioning. A supplementary instruction or trade notice could not create a substantive six-month restriction where the rule itself contained none, because Rule 233 authorised only supplementary instructions and not a new limitation. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same point and held that the six-month time limit was not sustainable and could not be enforced against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether a time limit could be prescribed for removal of goods received for repairs or reconditioning under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules after such repairs or reconditioning had been completed.

Analysis: Rule 173H did not prescribe any time limit for removal of the goods after repair or reconditioning. Rule 233 empowered the Collector only to issue supplementary instructions and did not authorise the creation of a substantive restriction by fixing a six-month period. A trade notice could not override the rule-making scheme or supply a limitation not found in the rule itself. The Tribunal also followed its earlier decisions taking the same view on Rule 173H.

Conclusion: The prescribed six-month time limit was not sustainable and could not be enforced against the assessee.

---