https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96388 Refund under Rule 173L was treated as admissible where rejected excisable cables were received back, the defect was cured by cutting out the non-conforming portion, and the goods were then re-insulated, re-braided and repacked before being cleared again on duty. The Tribunal accepted that this process amounted to remaking or reconditioning of the returned goods and noted that duty had been paid twice on the same goods. On that basis, the refund claim could not be denied merely because the department disputed the method of rectification. en-us Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:36:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96388 Refund under Rule 173L was treated as admissible where rejected excisable cables were received back, the defect was cured by cutting out the non-conforming portion, and the goods were then re-insulated, re-braided and repacked before being cleared again on duty. The Tribunal accepted that this process amounted to remaking or reconditioning of the returned goods and noted that duty had been paid twice on the same goods. On that basis, the refund claim could not be denied merely because the department disputed the method of rectification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96388