https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114704 Refund of duty on goods returned by buyers for reprocessing could not be denied merely because the invoices and packages lacked package numbers or identification marks. The returned goods were treated as falling within Rule 57F(1)(ii) and Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, and those provisions did not prescribe the markings insisted on by the department. D-3 intimation, laboratory checks, stores records and production reports were accepted as relevant supporting evidence to show that the same returned goods were reprocessed and later cleared on duty payment. The refund claim was therefore allowed, as absence of identification marks alone was not a valid ground for rejection. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 May 2012 11:31:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114704 Refund of duty on goods returned by buyers for reprocessing could not be denied merely because the invoices and packages lacked package numbers or identification marks. The returned goods were treated as falling within Rule 57F(1)(ii) and Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, and those provisions did not prescribe the markings insisted on by the department. D-3 intimation, laboratory checks, stores records and production reports were accepted as relevant supporting evidence to show that the same returned goods were reprocessed and later cleared on duty payment. The refund claim was therefore allowed, as absence of identification marks alone was not a valid ground for rejection. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114704