Refund of duty on re-entered goods must follow the special return-goods procedure; Section 11B alone cannot override it.

Refund of excise duty on duty-paid goods re-entered into a factory must be examined under the special scheme governing returned goods, not under Section 11B alone. Where goods were brought back under Rule 173H for repair, reconditioning or remaking and were then cleared again, the governing procedure for re-entered goods, including the mechanism contemplated by Rule 173L, had to be followed. A refund claim based only on the fact that duty was paid a second time would bypass the specific rule structure and undermine the statutory discipline applicable to such clearances. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore sustained on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on the second clearance of returned goods was admissible when the goods had been re-entered in the factory under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules but were cleared again without the contemplated repair, reconditioning or remaking, and whether the claim could be sustained by relying on Section 11B of the Central Excise Act alone.

Analysis: Section 11B provides the general framework for refund of excise duty, including refunds arising in situations involving returned goods. However, the refund claim in relation to re-entered duty-paid goods cannot be examined in isolation from the special scheme governing such goods under the Central Excise Rules. Under the relevant rules, re-entry of duty-paid goods in a self-removal regime is controlled by the prescribed procedure, and the goods in question had been brought back under Rule 173H for repair, reconditioning or remaking. The governing scheme required compliance with the specific provisions applicable to re-entered goods, including the mechanism contemplated by Rule 173L where duty is paid again on subsequent clearance. Accepting the refund claim merely because duty was paid a second time would permit circumvention of the special rule structure and would render the discipline of Rule 173L ineffective.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable on merits, and the rejection of the claim was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee could not bypass the special procedural scheme for re-entered duty-paid goods by invoking the general refund provision in isolation.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim relating to duty-paid goods re-entered into a factory must be tested under the specific rule governing such re-entry and subsequent clearance, and Section 11B cannot be invoked to override that special procedure.

---