https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268288 Cenvat credit and consequential excise benefit could not be denied merely because returned goods were not intimated in D-3 form or separate records were not maintained, where the goods were entered in RG-23 and the rejected goods receipt register and were otherwise duly accounted for. The factual finding that the goods had been received back in the factory and correlated with the prescribed records was not rebutted. The omission to file D-3 intimation was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to defeat the substantive benefit available under excise procedure. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268288 Cenvat credit and consequential excise benefit could not be denied merely because returned goods were not intimated in D-3 form or separate records were not maintained, where the goods were entered in RG-23 and the rejected goods receipt register and were otherwise duly accounted for. The factual finding that the goods had been received back in the factory and correlated with the prescribed records was not rebutted. The omission to file D-3 intimation was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to defeat the substantive benefit available under excise procedure. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268288