Rule 173L refund available for reprocessed returned goods; same tariff heading alone does not defeat the claim.

Refund under Rule 173L was available where MEG returned to the factory after an accident was reprocessed and cleared again on payment of duty. The governing question was whether the returned material constituted goods that were remade or reprocessed within the rule; the fact that the original and reprocessed goods fell under the same tariff heading was not, by itself, a bar to refund. Off-specification MEG and MEG were treated as different goods for this purpose, and the claim could not be denied once the other conditions of Rule 173L were satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L was admissible in respect of MEG returned to the factory after an accident and reprocessed before being cleared again on payment of duty.

Analysis: The governing expression is "such goods", and the decisive question is whether the goods returned to the factory after loss and rejection were re-made or reprocessed goods eligible for refund. The mere fact that the reprocessed goods and the originally cleared goods fell under the same tariff heading did not by itself justify rejection. On the facts, off-specification MEG and MEG were treated as different goods for the purpose of the rule, and the refund could not be denied when the other requirements of Rule 173L stood satisfied.

Conclusion: Refund under Rule 173L was admissible and the denial of refund was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the assessee obtained refund relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods returned to the factory and reprocessed may qualify for refund under Rule 173L if the rule's conditions are otherwise met, and classification under the same tariff heading does not by itself bar the claim.

---