Substantial compliance with Rule 173C saves refund claim despite missing account particulars, where procedural defect was non-fatal.

Refund could not be denied merely because the assessee's account records omitted particulars such as brand name and description of excisable components, where the department did not dispute that the goods returned for re-making were the same goods earlier cleared and that the re-manufactured goods were a different commodity. The procedural defect was treated as non-fatal because the statutory requirement was substantially met. Substantial compliance with Rule 173C was sufficient on these facts, so the refund claim was not barred by the missing particulars.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund could be denied for absence of certain particulars in the assessee's accounts, and whether there was substantial compliance with Rule 173C.

Analysis: The assessee had received the goods back for re-making and, after re-manufacture, cleared them without payment of duty. The refund claim was rejected only because the account records did not contain particulars such as the brand name and description of excisable components. The defect was treated by the appellate authority as procedural. The Tribunal noted that the department did not dispute that the goods received back were the same goods sent out earlier, nor that the re-manufactured goods were a different commodity. In that situation, the absence of the questioned particulars did not justify interference where the statutory requirement had been substantially met.

Conclusion: The assessee was held to have substantially complied with Rule 173C, and the refund could not be denied on the ground of the procedural deficiency.

---