Rule 173L refund requires proof of eligible return and processing; unsupported claim for refund failed.

Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required proof that returned goods were brought back for the purpose contemplated by the rule and subjected to the relevant further processing. The record did not show that the goods were returned for retesting, and they were found to be merely rejected goods. The asserted dismantling, reassembling, removal of original marks and affixation of fresh marks was not supported by the refund order or the evidentiary record. On that basis, eligibility for refund was not substantiated and the claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund was admissible under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for goods returned to the factory and allegedly subjected to further processing.

Analysis: Refund under Rule 173L depended on establishing that the goods were returned for the purpose contemplated by the rule. The record before the lower authority did not show that the goods were brought back for retesting, and the finding was that they were merely rejected goods. The assertion that dismantling, reassembling, removing original marks and affixing fresh marks would justify the refund was not supported by the order granting refund. In these circumstances, the appellate finding that eligibility for refund had not been substantiated was sustained.

Conclusion: The claim for refund under Rule 173L was not proved and the decision against the assessee was upheld.

---