Refund on returned goods depends on proof of reprocessing, reuse in manufacture, and fresh duty payment on re-clearance.

Refund of duty on returned goods required proof that the duty-paid goods received back were actually reprocessed, used in manufacture, and cleared again on payment of duty. The available records did not establish a reliable link between the returned goods and the later finished products: invoice endorsements were absent, the descriptions of goods did not match, and the Form-V register and worksheet failed to correlate the returned goods with the re-cleared goods. On that evidentiary basis, the alleged double payment of duty was not substantiated and the refund claim was not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of duty on the returned goods allegedly reprocessed and cleared again on payment of duty, on the basis of double payment of duty.

Analysis: The entitlement to refund depended on proof that the duty-paid final products received back were actually reprocessed and used in the manufacture of the goods later cleared, and that duty was again paid on such re-issue. The finding was required to rest on available documentary evidence because the matter was old. The records did not show endorsements in the invoices, the descriptions of the cleared goods did not match the goods received back, and the Form-V register and worksheet did not establish a proper connection or correlation between the returned goods and the finished goods said to contain them. In the absence of reliable evidence proving such use and re-clearance, the claim of double payment was not substantiated.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not established and the appeal failed.

---