https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116509 Refund under Rule 173L was available where duty had admittedly been paid twice on returned goods that were reprocessed and cleared again, provided the substantive requirements for return and reprocessing were satisfied. The Tribunal held that there was no mandatory requirement under the Central Excise Rules to intimate the exact nature of the defect in the returned goods, and the absence of such intimation did not defeat the claim when the factual aspects of return, reprocessing, and subsequent clearance were not disputed. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:23:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116509 Refund under Rule 173L was available where duty had admittedly been paid twice on returned goods that were reprocessed and cleared again, provided the substantive requirements for return and reprocessing were satisfied. The Tribunal held that there was no mandatory requirement under the Central Excise Rules to intimate the exact nature of the defect in the returned goods, and the absence of such intimation did not defeat the claim when the factual aspects of return, reprocessing, and subsequent clearance were not disputed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116509