Rule 173H benefit survives technical delay where substantive procedure was otherwise complied with.

Benefit under Rule 173H could not be denied merely because returned goods were received after the one-year time-limit introduced by Notification No. 21/89, where the assessee had otherwise complied with the prescribed procedure, including filing the D-3 intimation. The breach was treated as technical rather than substantive, and the authorities' power to relax the time-limit supported condonation in an appropriate case. On that basis, the delay was condonable and the assessee remained entitled to the Rule 173H benefit; the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Rule 173H could be denied for non-compliance with the one-year time-limit introduced by Notification No. 21/89, and whether the delay in receipt of returned goods was condonable despite substantive compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The goods had originally been cleared before the time-limit was introduced, and the assessee had followed the prescribed procedure under Rule 173H, including filing the D-3 intimation. The only lapse was the time-limit requirement introduced subsequently. The breach was therefore technical in nature. Since the authorities were empowered to relax the time-limit in appropriate cases, and the assessee otherwise satisfied the substantive requirements, the benefit could not be denied merely for this minor infraction.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Rule 173H. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if due.

---