https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81203 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied merely because departmental officers failed to draw samples when verifying D-3 declarations; that omission was a departmental lapse, so rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Loss of identity during the reprocessing stage, or mixing with other materials in that process, did not defeat the refund claim where the goods remained identifiable up to reconditioning or reprocessing. Refund also had to be assessed on the full quantity of returned goods, not artificially limited to only the quantity ultimately reprocessed. The assessee was therefore entitled to recalculation and grant of the admissible refund. en-us Mon, 14 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:50:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81203 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied merely because departmental officers failed to draw samples when verifying D-3 declarations; that omission was a departmental lapse, so rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Loss of identity during the reprocessing stage, or mixing with other materials in that process, did not defeat the refund claim where the goods remained identifiable up to reconditioning or reprocessing. Refund also had to be assessed on the full quantity of returned goods, not artificially limited to only the quantity ultimately reprocessed. The assessee was therefore entitled to recalculation and grant of the admissible refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81203