Rule 173L refund allowed where returned machine parts were remade into the same class of spindle machine

Rule 173L permits refund where returned excisable goods are not only reconditioned but also remade into another article of the same class. If dismantled parts of a returned machine are used to manufacture a replacement machine falling under the same tariff heading, the bar under the rule is not attracted. A change in the number of spindles does not alter the class of the machine when both products remain spindle machines. On that basis, refund eligibility was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 173L was admissible when the returned machine was dismantled and its parts were used to manufacture another spindle machine of the same class.

Analysis: Rule 173L permits not only reconditioning but also remaking. If the returned goods are utilised in the manufacture of goods of the same class, the bar under the rule is not attracted. The fact that the number of spindles changed did not alter the class of the machine, since both products were spindle machines under the same tariff heading.

Conclusion: Refund was admissible and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing refund was sustained because the returned machine had been used in making goods of the same class, within the scope of Rule 173L.

Ratio Decidendi: Use of returned excisable goods in making another article of the same class amounts to permitted remaking under Rule 173L and does not defeat refund eligibility.

---