https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107894 Refund under Rule 173L could not be refused merely because the Department did not verify the returned goods, where the assessee had timely filed D-3 intimations and maintained an authenticated register showing receipt, reprocessing and duty-paid clearance. The tribunal treated these steps as substantial compliance with the rule's requirements for intimation of re-entry and proper account maintenance. On those facts, the alleged defect in the form of records did not justify rejection of the refund claim. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and the appeals succeeded. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:46:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107894 Refund under Rule 173L could not be refused merely because the Department did not verify the returned goods, where the assessee had timely filed D-3 intimations and maintained an authenticated register showing receipt, reprocessing and duty-paid clearance. The tribunal treated these steps as substantial compliance with the rule's requirements for intimation of re-entry and proper account maintenance. On those facts, the alleged defect in the form of records did not justify rejection of the refund claim. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and the appeals succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107894