Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim under Rule 173L was admissible when the returned goods were received back beyond the prescribed period without any request for extension of time or condonation of delay.
Analysis: The returned goods were received in the factory after the expiry of one year from the date of clearance on payment of duty, though within a further period of less than one year. The assessee did not seek extension of time from the proper officer or Commissioner within the permissible further period, nor was any such request made in the refund claim proceedings. The plea that the D-3 intimation should be treated as an implied request for extension was not accepted. The cited decisions were distinguished because, in one case, delay had in fact been condoned on request, and in the other, the High Court had exercised writ jurisdiction to relax the requirement. Neither decision supported condonation in the absence of an application for extension of time to receive the goods back.
Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible and the rejection of refund was upheld.
Final Conclusion: Non-compliance with the time limit for receipt back of the returned goods, without a timely request for extension or condonation, defeated the claim for refund.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under Rule 173L cannot be entertained when returned goods are received beyond the prescribed period and no application for extension or condonation of delay is made within the permitted time.