Rule 173L refund requires documentary proof that returned goods were sent back for remaking, refining, or reconditioning.

Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is available only where reliable documentary evidence proves that the returned goods were sent back for remaking, refining, reconditioning or a similar process. The record described in the text lacked annexures or other material showing the defects in the goods or establishing that the statutory condition was met, so the refund claim could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund was admissible under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the absence of documentary evidence showing that the goods were returned for being remade, refined, reconditioned or subjected to a similar process.

Analysis: The refund claim could succeed only if the factual foundation required by Rule 173L was established. The record did not contain annexures or other documentary material proving the nature of the defects or showing that the returned goods were sent back for remaking, refining, reconditioning or any analogous process. In the absence of such proof, the statutory condition for refund was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund was not admissible and the appeal by the Revenue succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order sanctioning refund was set aside and the respondent's cross-objections failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under Rule 173L is allowable only on proof, by reliable documentary evidence, that the returned goods were in fact sent back for remaking, refining, reconditioning or a similar process.

---