https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88318 Refund under Rule 173L was treated as dependent on strict compliance with the six-month limit for re-processing and clearance of returned defective goods. The time period in Rule 173L(3) was an operative requirement, not a mere formality, and the officer's power under Rule 173L(4) to relax the provision on recorded reasons did not make that limit optional. Because the re-processing and clearance were completed after expiry of the stipulated period, the refund claim was held inadmissible. en-us Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:58:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88318 Refund under Rule 173L was treated as dependent on strict compliance with the six-month limit for re-processing and clearance of returned defective goods. The time period in Rule 173L(3) was an operative requirement, not a mere formality, and the officer's power under Rule 173L(4) to relax the provision on recorded reasons did not make that limit optional. Because the re-processing and clearance were completed after expiry of the stipulated period, the refund claim was held inadmissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88318