Refund under Rule 173L cannot be denied where returned goods were departmental-verified and register particulars were limited by the prescribed form.

Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be denied for alleged failure to prove return of goods or for deficiencies in the Form V register. Identification of the returned consignments was supported by D-3 intimation forms and the Superintendent's endorsement linking them to the relevant gate passes, and that departmental verification was not challenged. The Form V register was a departmental record, so the assessee could not be faulted for omitting particulars beyond the columns provided. The objections taken to reject the refund were therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to refund of duty, subject to the Assistant Collector being satisfied about the register maintained in the ordinary course.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be rejected for want of proof of return and for alleged deficiencies in the Form V register.

Analysis: The goods were found to have been identified with reference to the D-3 intimation forms and the Superintendent's endorsement verifying the consignments and relating them to the relevant gate passes. In the absence of any challenge to the verification itself, the recorded departmental verification supported identification of the returned goods. As to the Form V register, it was a departmental form, and the assessee could not be faulted for not supplying particulars beyond the columns provided in that form. The objections raised for rejection of refund were therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected on the stated grounds, and the assessee was entitled to refund of the duty, subject to the Assistant Collector being satisfied about the Form V register maintained in the ordinary course.

---