<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (8) TMI 425 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119951</link>
    <description>Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules permits refund where duty-paid goods are received back into the factory, D-3 intimation is given to the Revenue, and the reprocessing activity is completed within six months. The provision does not require the reprocessed goods to be cleared within that same period, as clearance may depend on commercial availability. Here, the returned goods were received in the factory, D-3 intimation was filed, and retesting and realignment were completed within six months. The invoice-description variation was only between abbreviated and expanded forms and did not show that the cleared goods were different from the returned goods. The refund claim therefore could not be denied for non-compliance with Rule 173L.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:48:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 425 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119951</link>
      <description>Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules permits refund where duty-paid goods are received back into the factory, D-3 intimation is given to the Revenue, and the reprocessing activity is completed within six months. The provision does not require the reprocessed goods to be cleared within that same period, as clearance may depend on commercial availability. Here, the returned goods were received in the factory, D-3 intimation was filed, and retesting and realignment were completed within six months. The invoice-description variation was only between abbreviated and expanded forms and did not show that the cleared goods were different from the returned goods. The refund claim therefore could not be denied for non-compliance with Rule 173L.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>