Retrospective limitation cannot defeat Rule 173L refund claims when the relevant date requirement was introduced later.

A refund claim under Rule 173L was not barred by the later amended Section 11B where the goods had re-entered for reprocessing before the amendment took effect. The relevant date for filing was not prescribed under the earlier regime, and the later insertion of a relevant-date requirement could not retrospectively curtail or defeat an accrued claim. Limitation was treated as procedural, and the claim filed shortly after clearance of the reprocessed goods was regarded as within a reasonable period on the facts. The Revenue challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim filed under Rule 173L was barred by the amended Section 11B when the goods had re-entered for reprocessing before the amendment took effect.

Analysis: The relevant date for filing the refund claim was not prescribed when the goods were re-entered for reprocessing. The amendment to Section 11B introducing the relevant-date requirement came into force later. Limitation is a procedural matter, and a later amendment cannot shorten or extinguish a limitation period retrospectively so as to defeat a claim arising under the earlier regime. Since the claim was filed shortly after the reprocessed goods were cleared, it was within a reasonable period in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred, and the Revenue appeal failed.

---