Testing for marketability treated as reconditioning under Rule 173L, supporting refund eligibility.

Testing of duty-paid goods to make them marketable was treated as a form of reconditioning within Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. The goods had been cleared under the Rule 173L procedure after the required declaration, and the testing was found necessary for marketability. On that basis, the appellate view was upheld that the activity fell within reconditioning and the refund could not be denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether testing of duty-paid goods, undertaken to make them marketable, can be treated as a process of reconditioning so as to attract refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The goods were cleared under the Rule 173L procedure after filing the required declaration and were subjected to testing. The appellate authority found that testing was necessary to make the goods marketable and, on that basis, treated the activity as reconditioning covered by Rule 173L. No infirmity was found in that view.

Conclusion: Testing of the goods for marketability was rightly regarded as reconditioning under Rule 173L, and the refund could not be denied.

---