https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91190 A refund claim could not be rejected merely because the assessee cited Rule 173L instead of Rule 173H when the record showed that duty-paid goods were returned to the factory after proper D-3 intimation and were accepted by the department under Rule 173H. The apparent misdescription was treated as a clerical error, and there was no factual basis to hold that the process carried out on the returned goods amounted to manufacture so as to take the matter outside Rule 173H. The rejection of refund was therefore unsustainable, subject to the refund being worked out under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Fri, 29 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:29:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91190 A refund claim could not be rejected merely because the assessee cited Rule 173L instead of Rule 173H when the record showed that duty-paid goods were returned to the factory after proper D-3 intimation and were accepted by the department under Rule 173H. The apparent misdescription was treated as a clerical error, and there was no factual basis to hold that the process carried out on the returned goods amounted to manufacture so as to take the matter outside Rule 173H. The rejection of refund was therefore unsustainable, subject to the refund being worked out under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91190