https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112915 Refund on re-processing of duty-paid rejected goods could not be denied merely because the records were captioned under Rule 173H instead of Rule 173L. The substantive requirements of Rule 173L were met: the rejected chemicals were received for re-processing, the departmental authorities were intimated, the goods were verified, separate accounts were maintained, and the re-processed goods were cleared on payment of duty. The captioning error was treated as a typographical mistake and did not affect admissibility of the refund claim. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 15:55:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112915 Refund on re-processing of duty-paid rejected goods could not be denied merely because the records were captioned under Rule 173H instead of Rule 173L. The substantive requirements of Rule 173L were met: the rejected chemicals were received for re-processing, the departmental authorities were intimated, the goods were verified, separate accounts were maintained, and the re-processed goods were cleared on payment of duty. The captioning error was treated as a typographical mistake and did not affect admissibility of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112915