https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114393 Where duty had been paid twice on the same goods, refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules could not be denied merely because the reprocessing of returned rejected goods by straightening and surface cleaning was said not to amount to manufacture. The Tribunal reasoned that procedural non-compliance with Rule 173L, by itself, was insufficient to defeat a claim where the substantive fact of double duty payment was admitted. The refund rejection was therefore set aside, and relief followed in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 May 2012 12:54:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114393 Where duty had been paid twice on the same goods, refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules could not be denied merely because the reprocessing of returned rejected goods by straightening and surface cleaning was said not to amount to manufacture. The Tribunal reasoned that procedural non-compliance with Rule 173L, by itself, was insufficient to defeat a claim where the substantive fact of double duty payment was admitted. The refund rejection was therefore set aside, and relief followed in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114393