https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101737 Duty-paid goods returned to the factory for repacking in fresh pouches after the original pouches were damaged or sub-standard were treated as falling within "re-made" and "any other similar process in the factory" under Rule 173L(1). On that basis, refund of duty was held admissible, and the contrary view that repacking was outside the rule was rejected. The further refusal of refund on the ground that the returned goods had nil market value was also disapproved, because no test or market enquiry had been conducted to support that conclusion. The excise note relied on also supported repacking from bulk to retail packs as a recognised processing activity. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:17:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101737 Duty-paid goods returned to the factory for repacking in fresh pouches after the original pouches were damaged or sub-standard were treated as falling within "re-made" and "any other similar process in the factory" under Rule 173L(1). On that basis, refund of duty was held admissible, and the contrary view that repacking was outside the rule was rejected. The further refusal of refund on the ground that the returned goods had nil market value was also disapproved, because no test or market enquiry had been conducted to support that conclusion. The excise note relied on also supported repacking from bulk to retail packs as a recognised processing activity. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101737