https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73763 Ambiguity in Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 governing remaking of duty-paid rejected or broken glass vials was construed in favour of the assessee, because the rule permitted retention of such goods for remaking while also creating doubt about whether a manufacturing process would defeat its benefit. The assessee's reprocessing under departmental approval was therefore within the rule, and the duty demands failed on the substantive issue. On limitation, the notices did not allege suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, so the extended period could not be invoked merely because the department later changed its stand. A substantial part of the demands was time barred. en-us Fri, 27 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:43:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73763 Ambiguity in Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 governing remaking of duty-paid rejected or broken glass vials was construed in favour of the assessee, because the rule permitted retention of such goods for remaking while also creating doubt about whether a manufacturing process would defeat its benefit. The assessee's reprocessing under departmental approval was therefore within the rule, and the duty demands failed on the substantive issue. On limitation, the notices did not allege suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, so the extended period could not be invoked merely because the department later changed its stand. A substantial part of the demands was time barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73763