<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (9) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88033</link>
    <description>Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed broadly to cover returned excisable goods that are remade, refined or reconditioned, including similar processing carried out in the factory before re-clearance on payment of duty. Returned goods brought back within time, duly intimated, separately stored, properly accounted for, and verified by the department satisfied the procedural requirements. Re-polishing, re-testing, re-packing, remelting and further manufacture were treated as processes within the scope of the rule, and the expression &quot;remade&quot; was read wide enough to include alteration to meet another customer&#039;s specifications, supporting refund eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:48:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 286 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88033</link>
      <description>Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed broadly to cover returned excisable goods that are remade, refined or reconditioned, including similar processing carried out in the factory before re-clearance on payment of duty. Returned goods brought back within time, duly intimated, separately stored, properly accounted for, and verified by the department satisfied the procedural requirements. Re-polishing, re-testing, re-packing, remelting and further manufacture were treated as processes within the scope of the rule, and the expression &quot;remade&quot; was read wide enough to include alteration to meet another customer&#039;s specifications, supporting refund eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>