https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84374 A refund claim under Rule 173L was not barred by the later amended Section 11B where the goods had re-entered for reprocessing before the amendment took effect. The relevant date for filing was not prescribed under the earlier regime, and the later insertion of a relevant-date requirement could not retrospectively curtail or defeat an accrued claim. Limitation was treated as procedural, and the claim filed shortly after clearance of the reprocessed goods was regarded as within a reasonable period on the facts. The Revenue challenge therefore failed. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:47:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84374 A refund claim under Rule 173L was not barred by the later amended Section 11B where the goods had re-entered for reprocessing before the amendment took effect. The relevant date for filing was not prescribed under the earlier regime, and the later insertion of a relevant-date requirement could not retrospectively curtail or defeat an accrued claim. Limitation was treated as procedural, and the claim filed shortly after clearance of the reprocessed goods was regarded as within a reasonable period on the facts. The Revenue challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84374