https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93401 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied merely for want of correlation when the assessee had filed the D-3 declaration and supporting records and the Department failed to carry out the required physical verification of the returned goods. The verification procedure was intended to establish identity between the returned and re-cleared goods, and departmental omission could not defeat the substantive refund right under Rule 173L read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The rejection on that ground was therefore unsustainable, and the refund claim was treated as admissible. en-us Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93401 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied merely for want of correlation when the assessee had filed the D-3 declaration and supporting records and the Department failed to carry out the required physical verification of the returned goods. The verification procedure was intended to establish identity between the returned and re-cleared goods, and departmental omission could not defeat the substantive refund right under Rule 173L read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The rejection on that ground was therefore unsustainable, and the refund claim was treated as admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93401