Rule 173L refund exclusion is confined to small or cottage sector concessions, not general Rule 8 exemptions.

Rule 173L refund was interpreted to cover returned goods in opened packages unless the exclusion in Rule 173L(3)(l)(i) clearly applied. The exclusion was read as confined to cases where goods were cleared at a concessional rate or under partial exemption in relation to the small or cottage sector, and it was not extended to a Rule 8 notification granting an effective rate generally applicable to all manufacturers. On that construction, the returned goods did not fall within the disqualifying clause merely because a Rule 8 notification applied, so refund was admissible on the substantive issue, with only a limited remand on the procedural intimation question in one appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L was barred in respect of goods returned in opened packages where the duty had been paid at a concessional or effective rate under a notification issued under Rule 8, and whether the exclusion in Rule 173L(3)(l)(i) extended beyond small or cottage sector cases.

Analysis: Rule 173L(3)(l)(i) was read as a whole and not in fragments. The expression referring to goods cleared at a concessional rate of duty or under partial exemption, together with the words referring to the First Schedule or a notification issued under Rule 8, was held to qualify the same category of cases. The exclusion was confined to concessional-rate or partial-exemption cases relatable to the small or cottage sector, and could not be extended to notifications granting an effective rate of duty generally applicable to all manufacturers. On that construction, the returned goods in opened packages did not fall within the disqualifying clause merely because a Rule 8 notification applied.

Conclusion: Refund was admissible on the substantive issue, and the appeals succeeded on merits, subject to the limited remand on the procedural intimation question in one appeal.

---