https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89544 Rule 173L was construed as not limited to goods returned only for manufacturing defects; returned goods sent for reconditioning, repair, remaking or remanufacture could qualify for refund. The absence of identical package count or the fact that the goods changed identity after dismantling and reprocessing did not defeat the claim, provided the returned goods were properly identified on receipt. On limitation, the relevant date was the date of entry of the returned goods into the factory for remaking, not the date of payment of duty, and a limitation objection raised only in appeal was not sustained. The refund claim was accordingly allowed, subject to proof that the duty burden had not been passed on. en-us Fri, 29 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:57:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89544 Rule 173L was construed as not limited to goods returned only for manufacturing defects; returned goods sent for reconditioning, repair, remaking or remanufacture could qualify for refund. The absence of identical package count or the fact that the goods changed identity after dismantling and reprocessing did not defeat the claim, provided the returned goods were properly identified on receipt. On limitation, the relevant date was the date of entry of the returned goods into the factory for remaking, not the date of payment of duty, and a limitation objection raised only in appeal was not sustained. The refund claim was accordingly allowed, subject to proof that the duty burden had not been passed on. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89544