https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83024 Duty-paid goods returned to the factory only for testing under Rule 173H were not covered by the one-year limitation proviso meant for goods brought back for repair, reconditioning, remaking or similar purposes. Testing was not treated as manufacture, so the subsequent removal of such goods after testing did not attract duty. A second penalty on the same goods was also unsustainable because penalty had already been imposed earlier for the same matter. The earlier view on limitation and duty liability was held incorrect, and the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable. en-us Tue, 30 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:51:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83024 Duty-paid goods returned to the factory only for testing under Rule 173H were not covered by the one-year limitation proviso meant for goods brought back for repair, reconditioning, remaking or similar purposes. Testing was not treated as manufacture, so the subsequent removal of such goods after testing did not attract duty. A second penalty on the same goods was also unsustainable because penalty had already been imposed earlier for the same matter. The earlier view on limitation and duty liability was held incorrect, and the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83024