Substantial compliance under Rule 173L permits refund claims where reprocessing accounts exist and limitation is otherwise satisfied.

Refund claims for defective goods returned for reprocessing could not be rejected merely because the extract of the reprocessing accounts under Rule 173L was furnished late, where the goods were received back and reprocessed within six months, the prescribed accounts were maintained, and the refund applications were filed within six months of the relevant date under Section 11B. The account-production requirement under Rule 173L(3) was treated as procedural and directory, so substantial compliance was sufficient if the account existed and was available for inspection. Late submission of extracts alone was not a valid basis for outright rejection, and the claims had to be considered on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claims for defective goods returned for reprocessing could be rejected merely because the extract of the reprocessing accounts under Rule 173L was furnished beyond six months, where the goods were received back, reprocessed within six months, the relevant accounts were maintained, and the refund applications were filed within six months of the relevant date under Section 11B.

Analysis: The account contemplated by Rule 173L(2) had been maintained in the prescribed register, and the reprocessing of the returned goods had been completed within six months. The requirement under Rule 173L(3) regarding rendering of the account was treated as procedural, and substantial compliance was held sufficient where the account existed and was available for inspection. The filing of the refund claims within six months from the relevant date under Section 11B was treated as satisfying the mandatory limitation requirement, and late submission of extracts alone was held not to justify outright rejection of the claims.

Conclusion: The refund claims could not be rejected solely on the ground of delayed furnishing of account extracts, and the matter was remanded for consideration of the claims on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive refund condition and limitation are satisfied, procedural requirements relating to maintenance and production of reprocessing accounts under Rule 173L are directory and substantial compliance is sufficient.

---