Broad construction of Rule 173L permits refund for returned goods remade, reprocessed, and re-cleared on duty payment.

Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed broadly to cover returned excisable goods that are remade, refined or reconditioned, including similar processing carried out in the factory before re-clearance on payment of duty. Returned goods brought back within time, duly intimated, separately stored, properly accounted for, and verified by the department satisfied the procedural requirements. Re-polishing, re-testing, re-packing, remelting and further manufacture were treated as processes within the scope of the rule, and the expression "remade" was read wide enough to include alteration to meet another customer's specifications, supporting refund eligibility.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on returned excisable goods that were re-polished, re-tested, re-packed, remelted and reprocessed before being cleared again on payment of duty.

Analysis: The returned goods were brought back within the prescribed time, duly intimated to the department, separately stored, accounted for in the prescribed manner, and subjected to departmental verification. The goods were thereafter processed in different ways, including re-polishing, re-testing, re-packing, remelting and further manufacture, before their subsequent clearance on payment of duty. Rule 173L was construed broadly to cover returned goods that are remade, refined or reconditioned, and also any similar process carried out in the factory. The scope of the expression "remade" was held to be wide enough to include transformation of the returned goods to suit another customer's specifications.

Conclusion: The appellant satisfied the requirements of Rule 173L and was eligible for refund of duty.

---