https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81218 Refund claims for defective goods returned for reprocessing could not be rejected merely because the extract of the reprocessing accounts under Rule 173L was furnished late, where the goods were received back and reprocessed within six months, the prescribed accounts were maintained, and the refund applications were filed within six months of the relevant date under Section 11B. The account-production requirement under Rule 173L(3) was treated as procedural and directory, so substantial compliance was sufficient if the account existed and was available for inspection. Late submission of extracts alone was not a valid basis for outright rejection, and the claims had to be considered on merits. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:35:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81218 Refund claims for defective goods returned for reprocessing could not be rejected merely because the extract of the reprocessing accounts under Rule 173L was furnished late, where the goods were received back and reprocessed within six months, the prescribed accounts were maintained, and the refund applications were filed within six months of the relevant date under Section 11B. The account-production requirement under Rule 173L(3) was treated as procedural and directory, so substantial compliance was sufficient if the account existed and was available for inspection. Late submission of extracts alone was not a valid basis for outright rejection, and the claims had to be considered on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81218