Strict compliance for excise refund on returned goods was required, and the claim failed for non-observance of procedural conditions.

Refund of central excise duty on returned goods under Rule 173-L depended on strict compliance with the prescribed procedure, including separate storage of the returned goods, maintenance of detailed accounts, and timely furnishing of particulars to the Collector. The assessee failed to satisfy these requirements: the goods were not kept separately, the necessary details were not provided within time, and no supporting material established reprocessing and re-clearance. The unexplained discrepancy between the invoice date and actual dispatch further weakened the claim. The refund claim was therefore not sustainable and its rejection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of central excise duty under Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules on the footing that duty had been paid twice on the same goods.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of central excise duty under Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules on the footing that duty had been paid twice on the same goods.

Analysis: Rule 173-L required strict compliance with the prescribed procedure before any refund could be granted. The assessee had to maintain detailed accounts of the returned goods, keep such goods separately pending reprocessing or reconditioning, and furnish the requisite particulars to the satisfaction of the Collector within the stipulated period. On the facts, these conditions were not satisfied. The returned goods were not kept separately, the necessary details were not furnished within time, and no supporting material was produced regarding the reprocessing and re-clearance of the goods. The discrepancy in the dates reflected in the invoice and the actual dispatch also remained unexplained.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not sustainable and was correctly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory procedure for claiming refund of duty on returned goods was not complied with, and the rejection of the refund claim was upheld.

---