https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112796 Refund under Rule 173L was available where MEG returned to the factory after an accident was reprocessed and cleared again on payment of duty. The governing question was whether the returned material constituted goods that were remade or reprocessed within the rule; the fact that the original and reprocessed goods fell under the same tariff heading was not, by itself, a bar to refund. Off-specification MEG and MEG were treated as different goods for this purpose, and the claim could not be denied once the other conditions of Rule 173L were satisfied. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 17:38:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112796 Refund under Rule 173L was available where MEG returned to the factory after an accident was reprocessed and cleared again on payment of duty. The governing question was whether the returned material constituted goods that were remade or reprocessed within the rule; the fact that the original and reprocessed goods fell under the same tariff heading was not, by itself, a bar to refund. Off-specification MEG and MEG were treated as different goods for this purpose, and the claim could not be denied once the other conditions of Rule 173L were satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112796