Rule 173L refund remains available despite procedural D-3 delay, with export under bond not defeating the claim.

A refund claim under Rule 173L was held not time-barred where it was filed within six months, computed from the day after receipt of the goods. Delay in filing the D-3 intimation did not defeat refund when the factory was closed on the intervening day, the purpose of intimation was verification, and no prejudice or pre-intimation reprocessing was shown; the delay was treated as procedural and substantially complied with. Refund was also not denied merely because reprocessed goods were exported under bond, but it was limited to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods. Where goods had not yet been cleared after reprocessing, factual verification and quantification were remitted to the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim under Rule 173L was barred by limitation under Section 11B; (ii) whether delay in filing the D-3 intimation disentitled the assessee from refund; (iii) whether refund was admissible where the reprocessed goods were exported under bond or had not yet been cleared on payment of duty.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim under Rule 173L was barred by limitation under Section 11B.

Analysis: The refund claim was filed within six months from the relevant date, and the period had to be computed by excluding the date of receipt of the goods and commencing from the following day. The claim was therefore within the statutory limitation period.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred and this objection failed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in filing the D-3 intimation disentitled the assessee from refund.

Analysis: Though the rule required intimation within 24 hours, the intimation was filed on the next working day because the factory was closed on the intervening day. The purpose of the intimation was verification of the returned goods, and there was no finding that reprocessing had begun before intimation or that the department suffered prejudice. The requirement was therefore treated as substantially complied with and the delay as procedural.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied merely for delayed filing of the D-3 intimation, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether refund was admissible where the reprocessed goods were exported under bond or had not yet been cleared on payment of duty.

Analysis: Refund under Rule 173L was held to be linked to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods and could not exceed that amount. It was held that export under bond did not by itself defeat the claim, but the refund had to be restricted to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods. For goods not yet cleared after reprocessing, refund could be sanctioned only if they were cleared on payment of duty or for export under bond, and the factual position had to be verified by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The claim was maintainable in principle, but quantification and factual verification were remitted to the adjudicating authority; this issue was partly in favour of the assessee and partly left for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that limitation and procedural delay objections were rejected, while the remaining refund entitlement and quantum were remanded for verification of duty payable on the reprocessed goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under Rule 173L cannot be denied on a merely procedural delay in D-3 intimation or on the ground that the reprocessed goods were exported under bond, provided the claim is within limitation and the refund does not exceed the duty payable on the reprocessed goods.

---