https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88727 Rule 173H was read as permitting duty-paid goods to be brought into a factory for repair or similar processes even when the goods had been manufactured in another factory. The language of sub-rules (1) and (2) was held to contain no restriction confining the facility to goods made in the same factory, and no requirement that duty must have been paid by the assessee himself. The later insertion of the words covering goods manufactured in any factory was treated as clarificatory, and the marginal note was not accepted as a valid aid to narrow the rule. The refund claim could not be denied on that ground. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:02:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88727 Rule 173H was read as permitting duty-paid goods to be brought into a factory for repair or similar processes even when the goods had been manufactured in another factory. The language of sub-rules (1) and (2) was held to contain no restriction confining the facility to goods made in the same factory, and no requirement that duty must have been paid by the assessee himself. The later insertion of the words covering goods manufactured in any factory was treated as clarificatory, and the marginal note was not accepted as a valid aid to narrow the rule. The refund claim could not be denied on that ground. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88727