https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94538 Rule 173H(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not itself impose a six-month limit for removal of repaired goods, and that restriction could not be added through a trade notice or administrative interpretation. A duty-free clearance condition affecting repaired goods must be authorised by the rule itself; an executive notice cannot create a new limitation where the rule is silent. On that basis, the demand raised for removal beyond six months was held unsustainable, and the Collector had no power to enforce the condition. en-us Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:17:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94538 Rule 173H(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not itself impose a six-month limit for removal of repaired goods, and that restriction could not be added through a trade notice or administrative interpretation. A duty-free clearance condition affecting repaired goods must be authorised by the rule itself; an executive notice cannot create a new limitation where the rule is silent. On that basis, the demand raised for removal beyond six months was held unsustainable, and the Collector had no power to enforce the condition. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94538