https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82844 Rule 173L refund could not be denied on the facts for a brief delay of a few hours in filing the D.3 intimation, because the intimation requirement was treated as directory and the goods had been physically verified by the Inspector on the relevant date. No concrete mismatch between the returned goods and the gate passes was established, so identity of the goods was sufficiently supported. The fact that the goods were rejected by the buyer did not bar re-making or re-processing in the assessee's factory, and Rule 173L did not require the reprocessed goods to be sent back to the same buyer. Refund was therefore allowed and the Revenue's objections failed. en-us Thu, 04 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:53:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82844 Rule 173L refund could not be denied on the facts for a brief delay of a few hours in filing the D.3 intimation, because the intimation requirement was treated as directory and the goods had been physically verified by the Inspector on the relevant date. No concrete mismatch between the returned goods and the gate passes was established, so identity of the goods was sufficiently supported. The fact that the goods were rejected by the buyer did not bar re-making or re-processing in the assessee's factory, and Rule 173L did not require the reprocessed goods to be sent back to the same buyer. Refund was therefore allowed and the Revenue's objections failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82844