https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93414 Reprocessing of returned pan masala was treated as repair or rectification of defect, not manufacture under Section 2(f), because the original ingredients remained the same and no commercially distinct product emerged. The absence of labeling, relabeling, repacking, or any other treatment creating a new marketable form meant central excise duty was not attracted on that basis. Rule 173H could not be denied merely because the reprocessed goods were cleared to persons other than those from whom they had been received, and omission of the word "remaking" did not change the position where the process was still non-manufacturing. The assessee was therefore entitled to the benefit of Rule 173H. en-us Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93414 Reprocessing of returned pan masala was treated as repair or rectification of defect, not manufacture under Section 2(f), because the original ingredients remained the same and no commercially distinct product emerged. The absence of labeling, relabeling, repacking, or any other treatment creating a new marketable form meant central excise duty was not attracted on that basis. Rule 173H could not be denied merely because the reprocessed goods were cleared to persons other than those from whom they had been received, and omission of the word "remaking" did not change the position where the process was still non-manufacturing. The assessee was therefore entitled to the benefit of Rule 173H. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93414