Refund under Rule 173L sustained where returned goods were verified, identity was established, and allegations lacked evidence.

Refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as sustainable where the returned lubricating oil had been verified by the departmental officer on receipt of the D-3 intimation, and no discrepancy was recorded at that stage. Identity of the returned goods was established through invoices and batch numbers, and the goods were shown to be of the same class after reprocessing. Unsupported allegations of manipulation and the absence of a quality report were insufficient to defeat the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied on the grounds of alleged manipulation of records, discrepancy in the D-3 declaration, and absence of quality report for returned lubricating oil.

Analysis: The returned goods had been verified by the departmental officer on receipt of the D-3 intimation, and no discrepancy was pointed out at that stage. The identity of the returned goods was established through the invoices and batch numbers, and the goods were shown to be of the same class after reprocessing. The allegation of manipulation of records was unsupported by evidence, and the objection regarding quality report was not sufficient to dislodge the refund claim, particularly when the records and departmental verification supported the respondent's case.

Conclusion: The refund claim was sustainable and could not be denied on the grounds raised by the Revenue.

---