Double duty refund under Rule 173L cannot be denied solely for procedural non-compliance when substantive entitlement is established.

Where duty had been paid twice on the same goods, refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules could not be denied merely because the reprocessing of returned rejected goods by straightening and surface cleaning was said not to amount to manufacture. The Tribunal reasoned that procedural non-compliance with Rule 173L, by itself, was insufficient to defeat a claim where the substantive fact of double duty payment was admitted. The refund rejection was therefore set aside, and relief followed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules could be denied on the ground that the processes undertaken on returned goods did not amount to manufacture, despite duty having been paid twice on the same goods.

Analysis: The goods were originally cleared on payment of duty, returned by buyers as rejected goods, reprocessed by straightening and surface cleaning, and cleared again on payment of duty. The only basis for rejection of refund was that the subsequent processes were not manufacture and, therefore, Rule 173L was said not to apply. The Tribunal held that when duty had admittedly been paid twice on the same goods, non-adherence to the procedure under Rule 173L could not by itself justify rejection of the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected on the stated procedural ground, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting refund was set aside and relief followed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty has been paid twice on the same goods, refund cannot be denied merely for procedural non-compliance under Rule 173L if the substantive entitlement is otherwise established.

---