https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114600 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied for a mere omission to mention reprocessing details in Form V, because procedural lapses do not defeat relief where substantive conditions are met. Strict identity between the goods originally cleared and the goods reprocessed and re-cleared was not required; it was enough that the goods remained of the same class after reprocessing. Refund was also confined to the specific grounds for rejection listed in Rule 173L(3), and where none applied, the refund could not be disturbed. The assessee's refund was therefore restored. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 13:05:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114600 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied for a mere omission to mention reprocessing details in Form V, because procedural lapses do not defeat relief where substantive conditions are met. Strict identity between the goods originally cleared and the goods reprocessed and re-cleared was not required; it was enough that the goods remained of the same class after reprocessing. Refund was also confined to the specific grounds for rejection listed in Rule 173L(3), and where none applied, the refund could not be disturbed. The assessee's refund was therefore restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114600