Procedural delay in rendering accounts cannot defeat refund where returned goods were reprocessed and duty was re-paid.

Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied merely because accounts of returned goods were rendered to the Assistant Commissioner after six months, where the goods were admittedly returned, reprocessed, re-cleared on payment of duty, and the relevant records were maintained. The procedural requirement in Rule 173L(3) was treated as intended to prevent misuse of the refund scheme, not to defeat a claim otherwise supported by substantive compliance. On these facts, the delayed rendering of accounts was a procedural lapse only, and it did not justify rejection of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty under Rule 173L could be denied merely because the accounts of returned goods were rendered to the Assistant Commissioner beyond six months, when the goods were admittedly returned, reprocessed, re-cleared on payment of duty, and the records were otherwise maintained.

Analysis: The procedural requirement in Rule 173L(3) for rendering accounts to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner was treated as intended to ensure that the facility was not misused. The Department did not dispute the return of the goods, their reprocessing, their re-clearance on payment of duty, or the maintenance of the relevant records. The accounts were subsequently produced, and the substantive conditions of the rule were found to have been satisfied. The delay in rendering the accounts was therefore viewed as a procedural lapse and not a ground to defeat the refund claim on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected solely for delayed rendering of accounts under Rule 173L(3), and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Substantive compliance with the conditions for reprocessing and re-clearance of returned duty-paid goods was held sufficient, and a purely technical breach of the account-rendering requirement did not justify denial of refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions of a refund scheme are met and the revenue is satisfied that there is no misuse, a procedural default in timely rendering of accounts does not, by itself, defeat the refund claim.

---