Statutory limitation and mandatory Rule 173L compliance barred refund of duty on returned goods, with no writ relief available.

Refund of duty on returned goods was held to be barred by limitation because the six-month period under Section 11B ran from the date of re-entry of the goods into the factory, and the claim was filed well after that time. Compliance with Rule 173L was treated as a substantive condition, not a mere technical requirement, because timely submission of the prescribed accounts was necessary for departmental verification. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked to bypass the statutory bar or excuse non-compliance where entitlement itself was not established, so relief was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for duty on returned goods was barred by limitation and rejected for non-compliance with Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, and whether relief could nevertheless be granted in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The refund application had to be filed within six months from the relevant date, which in the case of goods returned for remaking was the date of re-entry into the factory under the Explanation to Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The claim was made long after that period. The requirement to submit the prescribed accounts within time under Rule 173L was treated as a substantive condition, not a mere technicality, because it enabled contemporaneous verification by the department. The Court also held that discretionary relief under Article 226 could not be used to override a clear statutory bar, especially where entitlement itself was not established.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly rejected as time-barred and for failure to comply with Rule 173L, and no writ relief was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund claim is governed by a statutory limitation period and mandatory procedural conditions, the authorities and the writ court are bound by those requirements and cannot grant relief in disregard of them.

---