https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106209 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied for returned goods merely because they were repacked and resold, since repacking was not retrospectively treated as manufacture for the relevant period and the Department could not rely on that later characterisation to defeat the claim. The denial also failed because the show cause notice did not clearly set out the factual basis ultimately invoked, and the Department could not shift to a new ground at the appellate stage without issuing a fresh notice. The refund denial was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:31:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106209 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied for returned goods merely because they were repacked and resold, since repacking was not retrospectively treated as manufacture for the relevant period and the Department could not rely on that later characterisation to defeat the claim. The denial also failed because the show cause notice did not clearly set out the factual basis ultimately invoked, and the Department could not shift to a new ground at the appellate stage without issuing a fresh notice. The refund denial was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106209