Broad reading of Rule 173L supports refund claims for returned goods, but factual verification was still required.

Rule 173L was read broadly to cover remaking or reprocessing of returned goods, including transformation amounting to remanufacture, so a refund claim was not liable to rejection merely because the goods were treated as scrap or leftovers. The lower authorities had not rejected the claim on the specific grounds contemplated by Rule 173L(3). The ative issue was factual: whether the goods, after receipt in the factory, were subjected to a process permitted under the rule and then cleared on payment of duty. As that factual finding had not been made, the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh determination on that limited issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claim under Rule 173L was admissible where goods returned from the customer were treated as scrap or leftovers, and whether the matter required remand to verify if the goods were subjected to a permitted process and thereafter cleared on payment of duty.

Analysis: Rule 173L uses wide language covering remaking or reprocessing of returned goods, and the expression has been understood to include transformation amounting to remanufacture. The lower authorities did not reject the claim on the specific grounds contemplated under Rule 173L(3). The decisive factual question remained whether, after receipt in the factory, the goods were subjected to a process permitted under the rule and then cleared on payment of duty. That factual determination had not been made.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not finally rejected on merits and the matter was required to be remanded to the original authority for fresh determination on the limited factual issue.

---