https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48982 Under proviso (iv) to Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the expression "duty payable" was construed to mean the duty actually paid on the re-made or re-conditioned goods, not the notional tariff duty that might otherwise have been leviable. Applying that interpretation, the Tribunal held that where the reprocessed goods were cleared at nil rate under an exemption notification, refund could not exceed the duty actually paid. The earlier decision dealing with export under AR-3 was distinguished on facts and treated as inapplicable. The view limiting refund to the duty actually paid was upheld. en-us Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:14:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48982 Under proviso (iv) to Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the expression "duty payable" was construed to mean the duty actually paid on the re-made or re-conditioned goods, not the notional tariff duty that might otherwise have been leviable. Applying that interpretation, the Tribunal held that where the reprocessed goods were cleared at nil rate under an exemption notification, refund could not exceed the duty actually paid. The earlier decision dealing with export under AR-3 was distinguished on facts and treated as inapplicable. The view limiting refund to the duty actually paid was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48982