Refund under Rule 173L can be filed before repaired goods are cleared on duty payment, if filed within time after re-entry.

Rule 173L did not require prior payment of duty on reprocessed goods before a refund claim could be filed; the phrase "duty payable" was read as the duty becoming due on eventual clearance of the repaired goods, not as a condition precedent. A claim filed within time after the goods were re-entered for repair was therefore maintainable and could remain pending until the goods were actually cleared on duty payment. Section 11B, read with the explanation for returned goods, supported filing the claim within six months from re-entry. The refund claim was admissible and refund was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L could be denied merely because the reprocessed goods had not been cleared on payment of duty before the refund claim was filed, and whether the claim was maintainable when filed within the prescribed time after re-entry of the goods for repair.

Analysis: Rule 173L required the returned goods to undergo the prescribed process and the account to be rendered within six months; it did not require that duty on the reprocessed goods must already have been paid before the refund claim was made. The expression "duty payable" in proviso (iv) to Rule 173L(1) was construed as referring to the duty that would be payable on clearance of the reprocessed goods, not as a condition precedent of prior payment. The refund could therefore be filed within time and kept pending until the reprocessed goods were actually cleared on payment of duty. Section 11B, read with the explanation governing returned goods, supported filing the claim within six months from re-entry for repair.

Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible even though it was filed before the second clearance of the repaired goods on duty payment, and the assessee was entitled to refund.

---