https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213438 Reprocessing of duty-paid goods returned by buyers as rejected goods did not attract a second levy of central excise duty where the goods were only remade, repaired, reconditioned or further processed. The tribunal distinguished precedent on Chapter Note 11 and applied the settled principle that the same goods cannot be taxed twice unless the subsequent activity amounts to fresh manufacture in law. Rule 173H(2)(c) was held available on these facts, supported by the Board circular, so the duty demand was unsustainable and the order dropping the proceedings was upheld. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213438 Reprocessing of duty-paid goods returned by buyers as rejected goods did not attract a second levy of central excise duty where the goods were only remade, repaired, reconditioned or further processed. The tribunal distinguished precedent on Chapter Note 11 and applied the settled principle that the same goods cannot be taxed twice unless the subsequent activity amounts to fresh manufacture in law. Rule 173H(2)(c) was held available on these facts, supported by the Board circular, so the duty demand was unsustainable and the order dropping the proceedings was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213438