Refund on returned goods for reprocessing cannot be denied solely for missing identification marks when records substantiate the claim.

Refund of duty on goods returned by buyers for reprocessing could not be denied merely because the invoices and packages lacked package numbers or identification marks. The returned goods were treated as falling within Rule 57F(1)(ii) and Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, and those provisions did not prescribe the markings insisted on by the department. D-3 intimation, laboratory checks, stores records and production reports were accepted as relevant supporting evidence to show that the same returned goods were reprocessed and later cleared on duty payment. The refund claim was therefore allowed, as absence of identification marks alone was not a valid ground for rejection.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on goods returned by buyers for reprocessing could be denied merely because the invoices and packages did not bear package numbers or identification marks, when the return and reprocessing were supported by D-3 intimation, laboratory checks, stores records and production reports.

Analysis: The returned goods were treated as covered by Rule 57F(1)(ii) and Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules. Those provisions did not require identification marks or package numbers on the goods or invoices in the manner suggested by the department. In the absence of any specific rule making such markings mandatory, the mere inability to verify package numbers could not by itself defeat the claim. The supporting records, including D-3 intimation, lab reports, stores officer records and daily production reports, were relevant collateral evidence to establish that the goods were the same returned goods and had been reprocessed before fresh clearance on duty payment.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of absence of identification marks, and the assessee was entitled to refund.

---