https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114679 Goods received back under Rule 173H for reprocessing were not subject to a fresh duty demand because the Department failed to produce concrete evidence that the post-return process amounted to manufacture or deemed manufacture under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 32. The record, including the panchnama, did not establish the precise process or show that the goods changed character in the manner required to attract renewed excise liability. Since the goods had already suffered duty on original clearance, a second levy was unsustainable absent proof of a fresh excisable event; the duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 18:14:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114679 Goods received back under Rule 173H for reprocessing were not subject to a fresh duty demand because the Department failed to produce concrete evidence that the post-return process amounted to manufacture or deemed manufacture under Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 32. The record, including the panchnama, did not establish the precise process or show that the goods changed character in the manner required to attract renewed excise liability. Since the goods had already suffered duty on original clearance, a second levy was unsustainable absent proof of a fresh excisable event; the duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114679