Rule 173L refund requirements treated as directory where delay was brief, goods were verified, and reprocessing was permitted.

Rule 173L refund could not be denied on the facts for a brief delay of a few hours in filing the D.3 intimation, because the intimation requirement was treated as directory and the goods had been physically verified by the Inspector on the relevant date. No concrete mismatch between the returned goods and the gate passes was established, so identity of the goods was sufficiently supported. The fact that the goods were rejected by the buyer did not bar re-making or re-processing in the assessee's factory, and Rule 173L did not require the reprocessed goods to be sent back to the same buyer. Refund was therefore allowed and the Revenue's objections failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied for a slight delay in filing the intimation, alleged mismatch in identity of the returned goods, and the fact that the goods were rejected by the buyer and not sent back to the same buyer after re-processing.

Analysis: The intimation requirement under Rule 173L was treated as directory in the facts of the case, since the delay in filing the D.3 intimation was only of a few hours and the Inspector had physically verified the goods on the relevant date. The verification was taken as supporting compliance, and no concrete discrepancy between the returned goods and the gate passes was established. The fact that the goods were rejected by the buyer did not exclude the assessee from re-making or re-processing them in its factory, and there was no requirement under Rule 173L that the reprocessed goods must be sent back to the same buyer.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to refund and the Revenue's objections failed.

---