Rule 173H covers duty-paid goods from another factory for repair; later amendment treated as clarificatory.

Rule 173H was read as permitting duty-paid goods to be brought into a factory for repair or similar processes even when the goods had been manufactured in another factory. The language of sub-rules (1) and (2) was held to contain no restriction confining the facility to goods made in the same factory, and no requirement that duty must have been paid by the assessee himself. The later insertion of the words covering goods manufactured in any factory was treated as clarificatory, and the marginal note was not accepted as a valid aid to narrow the rule. The refund claim could not be denied on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty-paid goods received in the factory for repair under Rule 173H could be covered even when the goods had been manufactured in another factory, and whether the later amendment inserting the words "the goods whether manufactured in his factory or any other factory" was only clarificatory.

Analysis: The rule, as it stood when the goods were brought in and cleared, permitted an assessee to retain or bring into the factory duty-paid goods for repair or similar processes. The language of sub-rules (1) and (2) did not restrict the facility to goods manufactured in the same factory, nor did it require that duty must have been paid by the assessee himself. On a plain reading, there was no prohibition against bringing in goods manufactured elsewhere. The view that the later amendment merely clarified the existing position was reinforced by the text of the rule itself. The reference to the marginal or caption note was not a valid aid to construction.

Conclusion: Rule 173H applied to goods manufactured in another factory, and the refund claim could not be denied on that ground. The appeal was therefore allowed in favour of the assessee.

---