Rule 173L refund limitation failed where no extension was sought and the returned goods were not processed within time.

Refund under Rule 173L required returned goods to be processed and the account rendered within six months of their return to the factory. The rule did not oblige the assessee to defer processing until departmental verification, only to keep the goods available for inspection when required. As no relaxation or extension of time was obtained from the Principal Collector under Rule 173L(4), the statutory period remained unchanged. The refund claim was therefore barred by limitation and was rightly rejected as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Rule 173L was barred because the returned goods were not processed and the account was not rendered within six months, and whether failure to seek extension under Rule 173L(4) disentitled the appellant to refund.

Analysis: The returned goods were required to be processed and accounted for within six months of their return to the factory. The rule did not require processing to await departmental verification, only that the goods be made available for inspection when required. As the appellant did not secure relaxation or extension of time from the Principal Collector under Rule 173L(4), the statutory period remained unextended. The refund claim was therefore hit by limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly rejected as time-barred, and the issue is decided against the appellant.

---