Duty refund under Rule 173-L allowed where returned goods were reconditioned and resold; original return reasons held immaterial.

Refund of duty under Rule 173-L was held admissible where goods originally cleared on payment of duty were returned by the customer after project cancellation, then reconditioned to another customer's specifications and cleared again on payment of duty after due intimation. The Tribunal treated the original consignee's reasons for returning the goods as immaterial for Rule 173-L purposes and rejected the objection that the goods were not returned for remaking, refining or reconditioning in the contemplated manner. The refund claim was therefore allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on goods originally cleared was admissible under Rule 173-L where the goods were returned by the customer due to cancellation of the project and were thereafter reconditioned and cleared to another customer on payment of duty.

Analysis: The original clearance of the EPABX system on payment of duty was not in dispute. The returned goods were subsequently modified and reconditioned in accordance with another customer's specifications and cleared on payment of appropriate duty after due intimation under Rule 173-L. The only basis for rejection was that the goods had not been returned for remaking, refining, or reconditioning in the circumstances contemplated by the Rule. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that, for purposes of refund under Rule 173-L, the reasons or circumstances for which the goods were returned by the original consignee were immaterial.

Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible and the appeal succeeded.

---