Refund under Rule 173L allowed for returned cables reconditioned by cutting defects and reprocessing before duty-paid clearance.

Refund under Rule 173L was treated as admissible where rejected excisable cables were received back, the defect was cured by cutting out the non-conforming portion, and the goods were then re-insulated, re-braided and repacked before being cleared again on duty. The Tribunal accepted that this process amounted to remaking or reconditioning of the returned goods and noted that duty had been paid twice on the same goods. On that basis, the refund claim could not be denied merely because the department disputed the method of rectification.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty under Rule 173L was admissible when rejected goods were received back, defects were rectified by cutting the non-conforming portion and re-insulating/re-braiding the cable, and the goods were then cleared again on payment of duty.

Analysis: The only dispute was whether the returned cables could be treated as having been remade or reconditioned so as to attract refund under Rule 173L. The Tribunal accepted the technical explanation that the conductor diameter was not uniform only at some places, that the non-conforming portion was removed, and that the goods were thereafter insulated, braided and repacked. It also noted that the process amounted to remaking or reconditioning within the meaning of Rule 173L and that duty had been paid twice on the same goods.

Conclusion: Refund under Rule 173L was admissible and the rejection of the claim was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in establishing entitlement to refund, with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where rejected excisable goods are returned and the defect is cured by a process amounting to remaking or reconditioning, refund under Rule 173L cannot be denied merely because the department disputes the manner of rectification.

---