Refund of duty on returned goods is admissible when duty payment, actual return, and required claim particulars are established.

Refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was admissible where duty-paid goods were actually returned after testing and the refund claim contained the required particulars. The invoice showed that the goods were dispatched for equipment testing and not for sale, and the fact that they were described as remaking, reprocessing, or repair did not justify denial of refund when the substantive conditions were met. The ruling confirms that refund on returned goods cannot be refused merely because of a different description, if original duty payment, return of goods, and the prescribed claim information are established.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was admissible where the duty-paid goods were returned after testing and the required particulars were furnished.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared on payment of central excise duty, were actually received back, and the invoice indicated that they were being despatched for equipment testing and not for sale. The refund claim was supported by the relevant information required for claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In these circumstances, the objection that the goods were described differently as remaking, reprocessing, or repair did not justify denial of refund.

Conclusion: The refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was admissible and the objection was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of duty on returned goods cannot be denied when the goods were originally cleared on payment of duty, were actually returned, and the necessary information for claiming refund under Rule 173L is furnished.

---