https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84299 Rule 173L was treated as broad enough to cover processes similar to remaking, refining or reconditioning, not merely the named processes. Rewinding and repacking of returned duty-paid cables could therefore fall within its scope on the stated facts, so refund could not be rejected on that ground alone. The availability of Rule 173H did not by itself exclude relief under Rule 173L where the statutory refund conditions were otherwise met. The commentary also notes that, where the same goods are cleared on payment of duty twice after return and processing, the matter may raise double duty payment concerns under Section 11B and require fresh examination of the refund claim. en-us Wed, 31 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:09:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84299 Rule 173L was treated as broad enough to cover processes similar to remaking, refining or reconditioning, not merely the named processes. Rewinding and repacking of returned duty-paid cables could therefore fall within its scope on the stated facts, so refund could not be rejected on that ground alone. The availability of Rule 173H did not by itself exclude relief under Rule 173L where the statutory refund conditions were otherwise met. The commentary also notes that, where the same goods are cleared on payment of duty twice after return and processing, the matter may raise double duty payment concerns under Section 11B and require fresh examination of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84299