https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121991 Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules did not impose any time limit for removal of goods after repair or reconditioning. A supplementary instruction or trade notice could not create a substantive six-month restriction where the rule itself contained none, because Rule 233 authorised only supplementary instructions and not a new limitation. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same point and held that the six-month time limit was not sustainable and could not be enforced against the assessee. en-us Wed, 18 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:36:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121991 Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules did not impose any time limit for removal of goods after repair or reconditioning. A supplementary instruction or trade notice could not create a substantive six-month restriction where the rule itself contained none, because Rule 233 authorised only supplementary instructions and not a new limitation. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same point and held that the six-month time limit was not sustainable and could not be enforced against the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121991