https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90523 Refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was admissible where duty-paid goods were actually returned after testing and the refund claim contained the required particulars. The invoice showed that the goods were dispatched for equipment testing and not for sale, and the fact that they were described as remaking, reprocessing, or repair did not justify denial of refund when the substantive conditions were met. The ruling confirms that refund on returned goods cannot be refused merely because of a different description, if original duty payment, return of goods, and the prescribed claim information are established. en-us Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:23:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90523 Refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was admissible where duty-paid goods were actually returned after testing and the refund claim contained the required particulars. The invoice showed that the goods were dispatched for equipment testing and not for sale, and the fact that they were described as remaking, reprocessing, or repair did not justify denial of refund when the substantive conditions were met. The ruling confirms that refund on returned goods cannot be refused merely because of a different description, if original duty payment, return of goods, and the prescribed claim information are established. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90523