https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95847 Rule 173L, as amended by Notification No. 24/88-C.E. (N.T.), restricts refund for rejected goods returned for remaking, refinement or reconditioning to an amount not exceeding the duty payable on the goods actually emerging after that process. The earlier broader refund position was treated as inapplicable because it concerned the period before the restrictive sub-rule was inserted. In the absence of evidence showing a greater quantity of goods emerging after reprocessing, no refund could be claimed for process loss. The result stated in the text is that refund is confined to the duty on the emergent goods, and excess refund claims are barred by the amended rule. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:51:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95847 Rule 173L, as amended by Notification No. 24/88-C.E. (N.T.), restricts refund for rejected goods returned for remaking, refinement or reconditioning to an amount not exceeding the duty payable on the goods actually emerging after that process. The earlier broader refund position was treated as inapplicable because it concerned the period before the restrictive sub-rule was inserted. In the absence of evidence showing a greater quantity of goods emerging after reprocessing, no refund could be claimed for process loss. The result stated in the text is that refund is confined to the duty on the emergent goods, and excess refund claims are barred by the amended rule. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95847