Refund claims cannot be denied for minor procedural delay in accounts where timely filing and substantive compliance are established.

A refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be rejected as time-barred where the record shows that the application was filed within the prescribed period. A factual assumption that the claim was lodged after six months is insufficient to sustain denial once timely filing is established. The rule also confers discretion to condone delay in furnishing accounts relating to remaking of returned machinery, and a minor procedural lapse in that regard should not defeat refund when the substantive claim was timely and the department had accepted the remaking.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was liable to be rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond six months; (ii) Whether the delay in rendering the accounts relating to remaking of the returned machinery could be condoned under the relevant rule.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was liable to be rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond six months;

Analysis: The refund application was found to have been submitted within time, and the factual basis adopted by the appellate authority that the claim was made after six months was incorrect. Once the record showed timely filing of the refund application, rejection on that ground could not stand.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on the ground of belated filing was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in rendering the accounts relating to remaking of the returned machinery could be condoned under the relevant rule;

Analysis: Rule 173L(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vested discretion in the excise authority to relax the requirement for admitting a refund claim. The court treated the delay in furnishing accounts as only a minor procedural lapse, particularly where the refund claim itself had been filed in time and the remaking of the machinery had been accepted by the department.

Conclusion: The delay in rendering the accounts ought to have been condoned and could not justify denial of refund.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the authorities were directed to grant the refund to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under Rule 173L cannot be denied for a merely procedural delay in furnishing accounts where the claim itself is timely and the rule confers discretion to relax the requirement.

---