Refund claims must stay within the invoked rule; indirect credit relief cannot be granted beyond the application.

A refund application under Rule 173H had to be examined strictly within the confines of the provision invoked. On the admitted facts, capital goods cleared to a sister concern and later returned did not fall within the limited situations covered by Rule 173H or Rule 173L, so refund was not maintainable; once no refund was permissible on that basis, the authority could not grant indirect credit relief beyond the application, and that relief was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim filed under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules was maintainable, and whether credit could be granted when such relief was beyond the scope of the refund application.

Analysis: The respondent had sought refund under Rule 173H. On the admitted facts, the goods were capital goods cleared to a sister concern and returned later, which did not bring the case within the limited situations contemplated by Rule 173H or Rule 173L. The application had to be decided strictly under the provision invoked, and once no refund was permissible under the rules as claimed, the authority could not travel beyond the application to grant credit relief. The finding allowing credit was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and the credit relief could not be sustained; the appeal succeeded in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the refund claim stood affirmed in substance, while the additional credit relief was set aside, resulting in allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund application must be examined and decided within the confines of the rule invoked, and relief not permissible under that provision cannot be granted indirectly as credit.

---