Procedural delay in export cannot defeat refund where actual export is proved and time extension was granted.

Refund of duty and interest on goods cleared for export to Nepal could not be refused merely because export occurred after six months, where actual export was proved and delay was attributed to unrest in Nepal. The time limit in the notification was treated as a procedural condition meant to secure export, not a substantive bar to relief. Since extension of time had been granted, the delayed compliance did not defeat the exemption or rebate scheme, and the assessee remained entitled to refund with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty and interest paid on goods cleared for export to Nepal could be denied merely because the export took place after six months, notwithstanding that the export was actually completed and extension of time had been granted.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly exported, and the delay occurred because of unrest in Nepal. The time-limit under the notification was treated as a procedural requirement intended to ensure export, not as a substantive levy creating duty liability where export was ultimately effected. The extension of time granted by the Assistant Commissioner reinforced that the delayed export was not meant to defeat the exemption or rebate scheme. In export incentive matters, a technical lapse was held not to justify denial of a substantive benefit when the factual export was not in dispute.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied solely on the ground of delayed export, and the assessee was entitled to the refund with consequential relief.

Final Conclusion: The impugned denial of refund was set aside and the export-related relief was granted on the footing that actual export had taken place and procedural delay could not defeat the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export is actually proved and the governing condition is procedural in nature, delayed compliance does not justify denial of refund or other substantive export benefit.

---