https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89543 Variation in the price or contents of reprocessed goods did not, by itself, defeat a refund claim under Rule 173L where the returned goods had in fact been used in reprocessing or remanufacture. The decisive question was actual use of the returned goods in the remanufacturing process, not exact price identity. Because the record also raised unresolved factual issues on identification of the remade goods and limitation, the adverse orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on those points. en-us Fri, 29 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:56:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89543 Variation in the price or contents of reprocessed goods did not, by itself, defeat a refund claim under Rule 173L where the returned goods had in fact been used in reprocessing or remanufacture. The decisive question was actual use of the returned goods in the remanufacturing process, not exact price identity. Because the record also raised unresolved factual issues on identification of the remade goods and limitation, the adverse orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on those points. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89543