https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82892 Duty-paid goods returned to the factory after exhibition were held to fall within Rule 173H, so they could be re-cleared without a second duty levy. A trade notice could not add a one-year time limit where the rule then in force contained none, because an administrative notice cannot curtail a substantive statutory benefit. Duty paid on the second clearance was therefore treated as excess duty, and the refund claim was maintainable since it was filed within limitation and was not defeated on unjust-enrichment grounds. The refund was ordered accordingly. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82892 Duty-paid goods returned to the factory after exhibition were held to fall within Rule 173H, so they could be re-cleared without a second duty levy. A trade notice could not add a one-year time limit where the rule then in force contained none, because an administrative notice cannot curtail a substantive statutory benefit. Duty paid on the second clearance was therefore treated as excess duty, and the refund claim was maintainable since it was filed within limitation and was not defeated on unjust-enrichment grounds. The refund was ordered accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82892