Refund under Rule 173L requires proof of returned goods for reprocessing and proper co-relation; the claim failed.

Refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is available only where the assessee proves that the returned goods were sent back by the buyer for remaking, refining, reconditioning or a similar process, and that the goods can be properly identified and correlated with the earlier clearance. On the stated facts, the goods were returned because delivery was not taken within time, not for any statutory reprocessing purpose, and the invoices and descriptions did not properly tally. The claim for refund therefore failed, and the disallowance was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty was admissible under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the footing that the goods were allegedly cleared twice and were returned by the buyer.

Analysis: Refund under Rule 173L is available only where the assessee proves that the goods were returned by the buyer for remaking, refining, reconditioning or a similar process in the factory. On the facts found, the goods were not returned for any such purpose; they were returned because delivery was not taken within the stipulated time. The record also did not establish proper co-relation between the goods covered by the earlier invoices and those covered by the later invoice, and the description and quantity did not tally. The cited principle relating to the expression "same class of goods" was therefore not applicable.

Conclusion: Refund of duty was not admissible and the disallowance was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The claim for refund failed for want of proof that the returned goods satisfied the statutory conditions for relief under Rule 173L.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under Rule 173L is permissible only when the assessee establishes that the returned goods were sent back by the buyer for remaking, refining, reconditioning or a like process, with proper identification and co-relation of the goods.

---