Rule 173L refund requires re-processing and clearance of returned goods within six months; delay defeats admissibility.

Refund under Rule 173L was treated as dependent on strict compliance with the six-month limit for re-processing and clearance of returned defective goods. The time period in Rule 173L(3) was an operative requirement, not a mere formality, and the officer's power under Rule 173L(4) to relax the provision on recorded reasons did not make that limit optional. Because the re-processing and clearance were completed after expiry of the stipulated period, the refund claim was held inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Rule 173L was admissible when the re-processing and clearance of the returned defective goods were completed beyond the six-month period prescribed by the rule.

Analysis: The refund claim turned on compliance with the time limit in Rule 173L(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The period prescribed for re-processing and clearance of the returned goods was treated as an operative requirement, not a mere formality. Although Rule 173L(4) empowered the proper officer to relax the provision for recorded reasons, that relaxation power did not make the six-month limit non-mandatory. The asserted procedural lapse and reliance on decisions concerning substantive compliance did not assist because the present case involved clearance after expiry of the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible, as the requirement of completing re-processing and clearance within six months was not satisfied.

---