https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80873 The refund provision for excisable goods returned to a factory for remaking, refining, reconditioning or similar processing was construed to cover duty already paid on the returned goods themselves. Waste generated during reprocessing did not bar refund, because the rule was not conditioned on the entire output being free from loss or waste. The provision and its provisos were read as focusing on the returned goods and their use in producing goods of the same class. An amendment later relied on by the department was held inapplicable to the earlier period in dispute because it was not retrospective. en-us Thu, 08 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:30:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80873 The refund provision for excisable goods returned to a factory for remaking, refining, reconditioning or similar processing was construed to cover duty already paid on the returned goods themselves. Waste generated during reprocessing did not bar refund, because the rule was not conditioned on the entire output being free from loss or waste. The provision and its provisos were read as focusing on the returned goods and their use in producing goods of the same class. An amendment later relied on by the department was held inapplicable to the earlier period in dispute because it was not retrospective. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80873