https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30471 Refund of duty on returned excisable goods was denied because the returned items were treated on the evidence as plastic furniture scrap rather than usable defective chairs, and that factual finding was not shown to be unsupported. The court also held that refund was barred under Rule 173L(3)(v) where the Commissioner's opinion, based on market surveys and surrounding material, established that the value of the returned goods was less than the duty originally paid at clearance. Later treatment under Rule 16 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 did not govern the earlier regime. The refund rejection was sustained. en-us Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30471 Refund of duty on returned excisable goods was denied because the returned items were treated on the evidence as plastic furniture scrap rather than usable defective chairs, and that factual finding was not shown to be unsupported. The court also held that refund was barred under Rule 173L(3)(v) where the Commissioner's opinion, based on market surveys and surrounding material, established that the value of the returned goods was less than the duty originally paid at clearance. Later treatment under Rule 16 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 did not govern the earlier regime. The refund rejection was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30471