https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87754 Refund under Rule 173L was admissible where the D-3 intimation and gate pass particulars, read with the inspection record, did not show any material dissimilarity between the goods returned for reprocessing and the goods originally cleared. The inspecting officer's remark that the goods could not be identified was not supported by the record, and the appellant had in fact objected to that remark and sought re-verification. On the evidence available, the condition that the same goods were returned was satisfied, so the refund claim succeeded. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:16:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87754 Refund under Rule 173L was admissible where the D-3 intimation and gate pass particulars, read with the inspection record, did not show any material dissimilarity between the goods returned for reprocessing and the goods originally cleared. The inspecting officer's remark that the goods could not be identified was not supported by the record, and the appellant had in fact objected to that remark and sought re-verification. On the evidence available, the condition that the same goods were returned was satisfied, so the refund claim succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87754