https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120798 Goods received back for repair, reconditioning or remaking under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not subject to any statutory 180-day clearance limit. The time limit appeared only in a trade notice, and in the absence of a rule-based mandate, failure to clear the goods within that period did not constitute contravention of Rule 16. As a result, the demand of duty and penalty was not sustainable. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:03:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120798 Goods received back for repair, reconditioning or remaking under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not subject to any statutory 180-day clearance limit. The time limit appeared only in a trade notice, and in the absence of a rule-based mandate, failure to clear the goods within that period did not constitute contravention of Rule 16. As a result, the demand of duty and penalty was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120798