Rule 173L refund admissible where records showed returned goods matched the original cleared goods.

Refund under Rule 173L was admissible where the D-3 intimation and gate pass particulars, read with the inspection record, did not show any material dissimilarity between the goods returned for reprocessing and the goods originally cleared. The inspecting officer's remark that the goods could not be identified was not supported by the record, and the appellant had in fact objected to that remark and sought re-verification. On the evidence available, the condition that the same goods were returned was satisfied, so the refund claim succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Rule 173L was admissible despite the inspecting officer's remark that the goods could not be identified as those earlier cleared under the relevant gate passes.

Analysis: The D-3 intimation and the gate pass particulars were compared with the inspection remarks. The recorded remarks did not show any dissimilarity between the goods received back for reprocessing and the goods originally cleared. The materials on record also showed that the appellant had objected to the inspection remark and sought re-verification. On the evidence available, there was nothing to establish that the goods described in the D-3 intimation were different from those cleared under the gate passes incorporated therein.

Conclusion: The conditions of Rule 173L were satisfied and the refund claim was admissible.

---