https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50057 Remixing returned excisable goods with fresh material did not, on the Tribunal's reasoning, fall outside Rule 173L where no express or implied prohibition was shown. The Revenue's objection that refund should fail because the returned goods allegedly had no commercial value also failed, as that assertion was unsupported by evidence and the record did not establish that the reprocessed quantity exceeded the original clearances. The Tribunal reiterated that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and where the appellate order already contained the conditional Modvat credit reversal, the refund relief could not be denied. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:12:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50057 Remixing returned excisable goods with fresh material did not, on the Tribunal's reasoning, fall outside Rule 173L where no express or implied prohibition was shown. The Revenue's objection that refund should fail because the returned goods allegedly had no commercial value also failed, as that assertion was unsupported by evidence and the record did not establish that the reprocessed quantity exceeded the original clearances. The Tribunal reiterated that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and where the appellate order already contained the conditional Modvat credit reversal, the refund relief could not be denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50057