https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120366 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the show-cause notice and adjudication order did not specify the exact sub-clause allegedly breached and the record showed no suppression, misstatement or intention to evade duty. The goods had been returned by buyers, reconditioned and remade under Rule 173H, and cleared in accordance with that rule. The dispute over whether the process amounted to manufacture under Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 29 concerned tariff interpretation and did not establish deliberate evasion. The penalty was set aside and the assessee obtained consequential relief. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120366 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where the show-cause notice and adjudication order did not specify the exact sub-clause allegedly breached and the record showed no suppression, misstatement or intention to evade duty. The goods had been returned by buyers, reconditioned and remade under Rule 173H, and cleared in accordance with that rule. The dispute over whether the process amounted to manufacture under Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 29 concerned tariff interpretation and did not establish deliberate evasion. The penalty was set aside and the assessee obtained consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120366