https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109964 Refund could not be denied merely because the assessee's account records omitted particulars such as brand name and description of excisable components, where the department did not dispute that the goods returned for re-making were the same goods earlier cleared and that the re-manufactured goods were a different commodity. The procedural defect was treated as non-fatal because the statutory requirement was substantially met. Substantial compliance with Rule 173C was sufficient on these facts, so the refund claim was not barred by the missing particulars. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:21:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109964 Refund could not be denied merely because the assessee's account records omitted particulars such as brand name and description of excisable components, where the department did not dispute that the goods returned for re-making were the same goods earlier cleared and that the re-manufactured goods were a different commodity. The procedural defect was treated as non-fatal because the statutory requirement was substantially met. Substantial compliance with Rule 173C was sufficient on these facts, so the refund claim was not barred by the missing particulars. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109964