https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81196 A refund claim involving duty-paid goods returned to the factory and later used in manufacture must be examined on all relevant legal grounds, not confined narrowly to Rule 173H. The goods had been cleared on duty, returned under a verified D-3 declaration, and stated to have been captively consumed for another dutiable product. Because the authorities failed to consider other applicable provisions, including Rule 173L, and did not address the principle against double duty on the same goods, the rejection could not stand. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the claimant and allowing further evidence. en-us Tue, 08 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:36:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81196 A refund claim involving duty-paid goods returned to the factory and later used in manufacture must be examined on all relevant legal grounds, not confined narrowly to Rule 173H. The goods had been cleared on duty, returned under a verified D-3 declaration, and stated to have been captively consumed for another dutiable product. Because the authorities failed to consider other applicable provisions, including Rule 173L, and did not address the principle against double duty on the same goods, the rejection could not stand. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the claimant and allowing further evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81196