Refund on reprocessed export goods is admissible, but limited to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods.

Refund under Rule 173L is admissible where originally duty-paid goods are returned for reprocessing and then exported under bond, because clause (iv) of the proviso concerns the duty payable on the reprocessed goods and does not require actual duty payment on their clearance. The note follows the earlier two-member view in Metazinc and treats the contrary single-member view in Enzo Chem Laboratories as per incuriam. The refund, however, is capped by the statutory ceiling linked to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods, so the larger claim is restricted to the quantified limit of Rs. 3,65,878.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund under Rule 173L was admissible where the returned goods were reprocessed and exported under bond, and (ii) whether the refund was limited by clause (iv) of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods.

Issue (i): Whether refund under Rule 173L was admissible where the returned goods were reprocessed and exported under bond.

Analysis: The returned footwear had originally suffered duty, were received back for reprocessing, and were thereafter exported under bond without payment of duty. The earlier Tribunal view in Metazinc held that clause (iv) of the proviso to Rule 173L(1) concerns the duty payable on the reprocessed goods and does not require actual payment of duty on such clearance. A contrary single-member view in Enzo Chem Laboratories was treated as per incuriam, and the earlier two-member view was followed.

Conclusion: Refund under Rule 173L was admissible to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund was limited by clause (iv) of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 173L to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods.

Analysis: The statutory restriction capped refund at the quantum of duty payable on the reprocessed goods. On the assessee's own figures and the authority's finding, that limit was Rs. 3,65,878/-, and the larger amount claimed could not be allowed.

Conclusion: The refund was restricted to Rs. 3,65,878/-.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on entitlement to refund, but only to the extent permitted by the statutory ceiling tied to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 173L, refund is admissible when originally duty-paid goods are returned for reprocessing and re-exported, and the restriction in clause (iv) of the proviso limits refund to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods, not to actual duty payment on their clearance.

---