https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86358 Returned excisable goods re-processed into other grades of tungsten carbide powder were treated as satisfying Rule 173L, because the rule did not require the goods to remain defective in the same form and goods of different grades could still answer the same description. The refund claim was also found to be within limitation, with the relevant date determined under Section 11B(5)(B)(b). The challenge to refund on these main objections was rejected, although the matter was remanded for a limited inquiry into compliance with the account-rendering requirement under Rule 173L(3). en-us Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:47:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86358 Returned excisable goods re-processed into other grades of tungsten carbide powder were treated as satisfying Rule 173L, because the rule did not require the goods to remain defective in the same form and goods of different grades could still answer the same description. The refund claim was also found to be within limitation, with the relevant date determined under Section 11B(5)(B)(b). The challenge to refund on these main objections was rejected, although the matter was remanded for a limited inquiry into compliance with the account-rendering requirement under Rule 173L(3). Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86358