https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116026 The term "remade" in Rule 173H was given a wide meaning, covering the taking back of rejected wires, converting them into fresh wire, and clearing them under that procedure once the original identity was lost. On that basis, the duty demand treating the activity as outside the rule was unsustainable. The extended limitation period could not be invoked because the assessee followed the procedure with departmental knowledge and at Revenue's insistence, so no suppression or wilful misstatement was shown. The demand was also undermined by revenue neutrality, as Modvat credit on the rejected goods was admissible and could have been used for duty payment. en-us Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:54:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116026 The term "remade" in Rule 173H was given a wide meaning, covering the taking back of rejected wires, converting them into fresh wire, and clearing them under that procedure once the original identity was lost. On that basis, the duty demand treating the activity as outside the rule was unsustainable. The extended limitation period could not be invoked because the assessee followed the procedure with departmental knowledge and at Revenue's insistence, so no suppression or wilful misstatement was shown. The demand was also undermined by revenue neutrality, as Modvat credit on the rejected goods was admissible and could have been used for duty payment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116026