https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166775 Rule 173L refund was examined in relation to remanded adjudication and returned goods. The second adjudication was held not to exceed the remand because the issues of compliance with Rule 173L and the duty rate applicable to the original clearances were already within the scope of the claim and the parties' submissions. On refund eligibility, open return of goods did not by itself bar relief where identity and correlation with the original clearances were established. A notification fixing a uniformly lower duty rate was treated as different from a concessional rate or partial exemption for Rule 173L(3). Refund was therefore admissible, subject to crediting the portion attributable to RG-23 in the prescribed account rather than paying it in cash. en-us Fri, 20 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2014 16:08:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166775 Rule 173L refund was examined in relation to remanded adjudication and returned goods. The second adjudication was held not to exceed the remand because the issues of compliance with Rule 173L and the duty rate applicable to the original clearances were already within the scope of the claim and the parties' submissions. On refund eligibility, open return of goods did not by itself bar relief where identity and correlation with the original clearances were established. A notification fixing a uniformly lower duty rate was treated as different from a concessional rate or partial exemption for Rule 173L(3). Refund was therefore admissible, subject to crediting the portion attributable to RG-23 in the prescribed account rather than paying it in cash. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166775