Refund on reprocessed goods cannot be denied by implying a clearance deadline not found in the rule.

Rule 173L(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required only that reprocessing be completed and that the prescribed account be rendered to the satisfaction of the authority within six months of the goods returning to the factory. It did not impose any further time-limit for clearance of the reprocessed goods. A refund of duty on reprocessed goods therefore could not be refused merely because the goods were cleared after six months, where the statutory conditions themselves had been complied with. The rule could not be expanded by implying an additional restriction not expressly stated, and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty on reprocessed goods could be denied on the ground that the goods were cleared after six months from re-entry into the factory, notwithstanding completion of processing and rendering of accounts within the prescribed period under Rule 173L(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 173L(3) requires only that the processes be completed and that an account under sub-rule (2) be rendered to the satisfaction of the authority within six months of the return of the goods to the factory. It does not impose any further time-limit for clearance of the goods after reprocessing. Since the assessee had complied with the actual conditions stated in the rule, rejection of refund on the additional ground of delayed clearance had no support in the rule.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground that the reprocessed goods were cleared after six months, and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund condition cannot be denied by reading into the rule a limitation that is not expressly provided; where the statutory requirement is confined to completion of processing and rendering of accounts within time, no additional time-limit for subsequent clearance can be implied.

---