https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3775 Goods returned solely for repair and rectification, where the process did not amount to manufacture, were held to fall under Rule 173H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, not Rule 173L. Rule 173L, which governs remaking, refining, reconditioning or similar factory processes, was therefore inapplicable to the returned duty-paid defective goods. On that basis, the refund claim under Rule 173L was found not maintainable, the Revenue's position was accepted, and the order granting refund was set aside. en-us Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3775 Goods returned solely for repair and rectification, where the process did not amount to manufacture, were held to fall under Rule 173H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, not Rule 173L. Rule 173L, which governs remaking, refining, reconditioning or similar factory processes, was therefore inapplicable to the returned duty-paid defective goods. On that basis, the refund claim under Rule 173L was found not maintainable, the Revenue's position was accepted, and the order granting refund was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3775