Duty-free removal of repaired goods cannot be restricted by trade notice where Rule 173H(3) contains no six-month limit.

Rule 173H(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not itself impose a six-month limit for removal of repaired goods, and that restriction could not be added through a trade notice or administrative interpretation. A duty-free clearance condition affecting repaired goods must be authorised by the rule itself; an executive notice cannot create a new limitation where the rule is silent. On that basis, the demand raised for removal beyond six months was held unsustainable, and the Collector had no power to enforce the condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector could prescribe a six-month time limit for removal of repaired goods under Rule 173H(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether a trade notice could validly impose such a condition.

Analysis: Rule 173H did not itself prescribe any six-month period for removal of goods after repairs. The six-month requirement was traced only to the trade notice and to the Collector's interpretation of sub-rule (3). A condition restricting duty-free clearance cannot be introduced by trade notice or by an administrative view if the rule does not authorise such a limitation. The appellate findings confirming duty demand on the footing of the six-month period were therefore contrary to the rule.

Conclusion: The six-month condition was not authorised by Rule 173H(3), and the Collector had no power to impose it. The demand based on delay beyond six months was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---