https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107522 Rule 173L was read broadly to cover remaking or reprocessing of returned goods, including transformation amounting to remanufacture, so a refund claim was not liable to rejection merely because the goods were treated as scrap or leftovers. The lower authorities had not rejected the claim on the specific grounds contemplated by Rule 173L(3). The ative issue was factual: whether the goods, after receipt in the factory, were subjected to a process permitted under the rule and then cleared on payment of duty. As that factual finding had not been made, the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh determination on that limited issue. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:58:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107522 Rule 173L was read broadly to cover remaking or reprocessing of returned goods, including transformation amounting to remanufacture, so a refund claim was not liable to rejection merely because the goods were treated as scrap or leftovers. The lower authorities had not rejected the claim on the specific grounds contemplated by Rule 173L(3). The ative issue was factual: whether the goods, after receipt in the factory, were subjected to a process permitted under the rule and then cleared on payment of duty. As that factual finding had not been made, the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh determination on that limited issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107522