Refund claim under Rule 173L failed where D-3 intimation under Rule 173H did not satisfy the prescribed procedure.

Goods received under Rule 173H and re-dispatched after repacking were held not to satisfy the procedure for refund benefit because the assessee's D-3 intimation under Rule 173H could not be treated as compliance under Rule 173L. Since the prescribed procedural requirements for claiming the refund were not followed and duty was paid only later, the rejection of the refund claim was justified. The appeal therefore failed, with the matter decided in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was admissible when the goods were received and re-cleared under Rule 173H, and whether the D-3 intimation could be treated as compliance under Rule 173L.

Analysis: The goods were received under Rule 173H and, after repacking, were re-dispatched without payment of duty at the time of clearance. The assessee had filed D-3 intimation under Rule 173H, but that intimation could not be regarded as one under Rule 173L. The prescribed procedure for availing the benefit was not followed, and duty was paid only later. On these facts, the rejection of the refund claim was found to be justified.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible and the appeal failed, in favour of the Revenue.

---