https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88221 Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be denied merely because the assessee did not explain why customers rejected the goods or set out the reconditioning process in elaborate detail. The provision did not require disclosure of the reasons for rejection, and the record showed that the department was informed the goods had a colour defect, that the defect was rectified by blending, and that the required D-3 intimation was furnished on receipt of the goods for reprocessing. On that basis, the rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable and the refund was payable. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:34:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88221 Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be denied merely because the assessee did not explain why customers rejected the goods or set out the reconditioning process in elaborate detail. The provision did not require disclosure of the reasons for rejection, and the record showed that the department was informed the goods had a colour defect, that the defect was rectified by blending, and that the required D-3 intimation was furnished on receipt of the goods for reprocessing. On that basis, the rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable and the refund was payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88221