Rule 173L refund limitation runs from re-entry of returned goods, and the claim need not await second clearance.

Rule 173L refund claims are not barred by limitation under Section 11B when filed within six months from the date returned goods re-enter the factory, because that date is the relevant date for limitation rather than the later formal rejection by the customer. The assessee need not wait for the second clearance of reconditioned goods before claiming refund; that later clearance matters only to cap the refund at the duty payable. The refund claim was therefore within time and not premature, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim filed under Rule 173L was barred by limitation under Section 11B, and whether the claim was premature because the second clearance of the reconditioned goods had not yet taken place.

Analysis: The relevant date for limitation under Section 11B was the date on which the returned goods re-entered the factory, not the later date on which the customer's formal rejection was received. The refund claim was filed within six months of that entry date. The rules did not require the assessee to wait for the second clearance of the reconditioned goods before filing the refund claim. The subsequent clearance was relevant only to the extent that the refund could not exceed the duty payable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was within limitation and was not premature. The Revenue's challenge failed.

---