Refund under Rule 173L requires strict procedural and accounting compliance; non-compliance makes the claim unsustainable.

Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 depended on compliance with the prescribed procedure, maintenance of detailed accounts, and satisfaction of the conditions for receipt back of defective goods. The record showed that the appellant did not follow the required procedure for refund on returned defective material, did not seek relaxation of the rule, and did not establish the necessary accountal and processing compliance. On those facts, the refund claim was held unsustainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and conditions.

Analysis: The claim was examined with reference to the requirements of Rule 173L, which required observance of the prescribed procedure, maintenance of detailed accounts, and satisfaction of the conditions governing receipt back of defective goods. The record showed that the appellant did not follow the procedure for refund on returned defective material, did not seek relaxation of the rule, and did not establish compliance with the required accountal and processing conditions.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not sustainable and was rightly rejected. The appeal failed.

---