Refund claims fail where repurchase price does not reflect realistic market value of returned goods under excise rules.

Refund under Rule 97(1)(vi) and Rule 173L(3)(v) was denied because the repurchase price of returned cigarettes did not establish their statutory "value" at the time of return. The expression "value" was treated as realistic market value, not an arbitrary price fixed for business reasons. Although the goods were taken back from dealers at the original cum-duty price, they had deteriorated in storage and some were unsaleable, so the repurchase price did not reflect their actual worth. The claimant failed to prove that the returned goods were worth at least the duty originally paid, and the refund claims were held inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Rule 97(1)(vi) and Rule 173L(3)(v) was admissible where cigarettes taken back from dealers were repurchased at the original cum-duty price, and whether such repurchase price could be treated as the value of the returned goods for satisfying the statutory condition that the value must not be less than the duty originally paid.

Analysis: The return of the cigarettes was in the nature of a sale, but the price actually paid on repurchase did not necessarily represent the market value of the deteriorated goods. The statutory expression "value" required a realistic market value and not an arbitrary or extraneous price. Since the goods had deteriorated in storage and some were unsaleable, the price paid by the respondent was influenced by business considerations to protect brand image and not by the actual worth of the goods in the market. The burden was on the respondent to show that the value at the time of return was not less than the duty originally paid, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The returned goods did not satisfy the statutory value condition, and the refund claims were not admissible.

---