https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89424 Refinishing carried out only to remove defects from duty-paid finished goods received under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not amount to manufacture, because the goods were already finished and no new product emerged. Even if the processes could fall within Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Chapter Note 3(d) of Chapter 54 of the Tariff Act, they did not change the character of the goods into a new commodity. The assessee therefore remained entitled to the Rule 173H benefit, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:17:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89424 Refinishing carried out only to remove defects from duty-paid finished goods received under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not amount to manufacture, because the goods were already finished and no new product emerged. Even if the processes could fall within Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Chapter Note 3(d) of Chapter 54 of the Tariff Act, they did not change the character of the goods into a new commodity. The assessee therefore remained entitled to the Rule 173H benefit, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89424