Rule 173M permission covers repacking on re-export, and duty refund follows when statutory conditions are satisfied.

Permission under Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as quasi-judicial because it involved civil consequences and required a fair determination. The rule was construed broadly so that remaking or reconditioning included unpacking and repacking, and a narrow reading excluding repacking would defeat its object. Where the competent authority had granted unchallenged permission and the statutory conditions were complied with, refund of duty on re-export was legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty was sustainable where exported goods were permitted to be brought back for repacking and re-export under Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Permission under Rule 173M was granted by a competent authority and had not been challenged by the Department. The power exercised under the rule was held to be quasi-judicial in character because it involved civil consequences and required a fair and just determination. The rule was construed broadly so that remaking or reconditioning necessarily included unpacking and repacking. A narrow reading excluding repacking would defeat the object of the provision. Since the conditions of the rule were complied with, refund followed as a consequence of the permitted re-export.

Conclusion: The refund was legally sustainable and the appeal failed.

---