Rule 173H benefit cannot be denied for mere procedural delay when duty-paid goods remain available and reprocessing is not disproved.

Procedural delay in intimation of receipt of duty-paid goods did not defeat entitlement to Rule 173H where the goods remained physically available in the factory for departmental inspection, and the delay in re-issue of the reprocessed goods was treated as condonable. In the absence of any adverse material disproving the duty-paid character of the goods or showing that reprocessing had not taken place, mere delay could not justify denial of the statutory benefit. The appellant was therefore entitled to Rule 173H relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Rule 173H despite delay in filing intimation of receipt of duty-paid goods and delay in re-issue of the reprocessed goods.

Analysis: The delay in intimation was held not to be fatal because the goods were still physically available in the factory for inspection by the departmental officers. The delay in completing and dispatching the reprocessed goods was treated as condonable, and there was no adverse material to show that the duty-paid nature of the goods was disproved or that the reprocessing activity had not been undertaken. In these circumstances, mere procedural delay could not justify denial of the statutory benefit.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Rule 173H, and denial of that benefit was not justified.

---