Substantive compliance with excise refund procedure prevails over a wrong rule caption in records for reprocessed rejected goods.

Refund on re-processing of duty-paid rejected goods could not be denied merely because the records were captioned under Rule 173H instead of Rule 173L. The substantive requirements of Rule 173L were met: the rejected chemicals were received for re-processing, the departmental authorities were intimated, the goods were verified, separate accounts were maintained, and the re-processed goods were cleared on payment of duty. The captioning error was treated as a typographical mistake and did not affect admissibility of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was liable to be rejected on the ground that the records for re-processing of duty-paid rejected goods bore the caption of Rule 173H instead of Rule 173L, despite substantive compliance with Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from receipt of rejected chemicals for re-processing, with intimation to the departmental authorities, verification of the material, maintenance of separate accounts, and clearance of the re-processed goods on payment of duty. The decisive requirement was compliance with Rule 173L, and the record showed that all particulars required under that rule were maintained. The only defect noticed was that the title of the records mentioned Rule 173H instead of Rule 173L. Since the substantive requirements of Rule 173L were otherwise satisfied, the captioning mistake was treated as a typographical error and not as a breach affecting admissibility of the claim.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was not sustainable, as there had been compliance with Rule 173L and the captioning error did not invalidate the claim.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the assessee was held entitled to the consequential relief flowing from acceptance of the refund claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be rejected merely for an erroneous caption in the records when the substantive procedural requirements of the applicable excise rule have been complied with.

---