https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90136 Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required proof that returned goods were brought back for the purpose contemplated by the rule and subjected to the relevant further processing. The record did not show that the goods were returned for retesting, and they were found to be merely rejected goods. The asserted dismantling, reassembling, removal of original marks and affixation of fresh marks was not supported by the refund order or the evidentiary record. On that basis, eligibility for refund was not substantiated and the claim failed. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:22:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90136 Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required proof that returned goods were brought back for the purpose contemplated by the rule and subjected to the relevant further processing. The record did not show that the goods were returned for retesting, and they were found to be merely rejected goods. The asserted dismantling, reassembling, removal of original marks and affixation of fresh marks was not supported by the refund order or the evidentiary record. On that basis, eligibility for refund was not substantiated and the claim failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90136