https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123672 Duty-paid pesticides returned for repacking, relabelling, resealing, replacement of damaged containers and refilling into smaller packs were discussed as eligible for clearance under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, even where the handling involved further processing. The Tribunal's reasoning was that the benefit of the return-and-reprocess procedure could not be denied merely because the goods underwent such operations, and that the matter was revenue neutral because compliance through Rule 173L would have resulted only in duty payment followed by a refund claim. Differential duty payment where value addition occurred also supported the assessee's position, so the duty demand and penalties were treated as unsustainable. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123672 Duty-paid pesticides returned for repacking, relabelling, resealing, replacement of damaged containers and refilling into smaller packs were discussed as eligible for clearance under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, even where the handling involved further processing. The Tribunal's reasoning was that the benefit of the return-and-reprocess procedure could not be denied merely because the goods underwent such operations, and that the matter was revenue neutral because compliance through Rule 173L would have resulted only in duty payment followed by a refund claim. Differential duty payment where value addition occurred also supported the assessee's position, so the duty demand and penalties were treated as unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123672