https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108475 Repacking of a chemical was treated as manufacture under Chapter 29, and the resulting clearance attracted central excise duty. The appellant's attempt to resist reversal of Modvat credit failed because the goods were found to retain commercial value and were not shown to have been spent in manufacture or restored to their original condition. The factual record also did not clarify whether the goods were cleared as such or after restoration. On these findings, the duty demand and credit reversal were upheld, and the penalty was sustained because no basis for leniency was shown. en-us Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:41:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108475 Repacking of a chemical was treated as manufacture under Chapter 29, and the resulting clearance attracted central excise duty. The appellant's attempt to resist reversal of Modvat credit failed because the goods were found to retain commercial value and were not shown to have been spent in manufacture or restored to their original condition. The factual record also did not clarify whether the goods were cleared as such or after restoration. On these findings, the duty demand and credit reversal were upheld, and the penalty was sustained because no basis for leniency was shown. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108475