https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48707 Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was interpreted to determine whether "re-made" covers remanufacture of duty-paid damaged goods returned to a factory for conversion into finished goods. The majority adopted the ordinary and contextual meaning of the term, noting the absence of any restrictive exclusion of manufacture and relying on departmental clarification and prior decisions. On that approach, returned goods that are made again may fall within the rule and refund is admissible. A dissenting view treated manufacture as distinct from remaking and would exclude such conversion from Rule 173L. en-us Thu, 25 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2023 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48707 Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was interpreted to determine whether "re-made" covers remanufacture of duty-paid damaged goods returned to a factory for conversion into finished goods. The majority adopted the ordinary and contextual meaning of the term, noting the absence of any restrictive exclusion of manufacture and relying on departmental clarification and prior decisions. On that approach, returned goods that are made again may fall within the rule and refund is admissible. A dissenting view treated manufacture as distinct from remaking and would exclude such conversion from Rule 173L. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48707