Rule 173L refund relief applies when delay is condoned and duty-paid goods are returned for reconditioning.

Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules was held admissible where duty-paid goods were returned for reconditioning after the prescribed period, because the competent authority had condoned the delay. The Tribunal read the relaxation power under Rule 173L(4) as extending to the rule as a whole, including the conditions governing return and reconditioning of the goods. On that basis, the earlier removal and subsequent return of the goods were treated as sufficient to satisfy the refund requirement, and the claim was accepted in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund was admissible under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules when the goods were returned for reconditioning after expiry of the prescribed period and the delay had been condoned.

Analysis: The goods had been originally cleared on payment of duty and were subsequently brought back for reconditioning. Permission for relaxation of the time limit was sought and the delay was condoned by the Addl. Commissioner. The power of relaxation under sub-rule (4) of Rule 173L was held to extend to all the sub-clauses of that rule, and the Tribunal treated the earlier return and reconditioning of the goods as sufficient to satisfy the requirement for refund.

Conclusion: The refund was admissible and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent authority condones delay, the relaxation power under Rule 173L(4) of the Central Excise Rules extends to the rule as a whole and supports admissibility of refund on return of duty-paid goods for reconditioning.

---