https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91340 Refund under Rule 173L required returned goods to be processed and the account rendered within six months of their return to the factory. The rule did not oblige the assessee to defer processing until departmental verification, only to keep the goods available for inspection when required. As no relaxation or extension of time was obtained from the Principal Collector under Rule 173L(4), the statutory period remained unchanged. The refund claim was therefore barred by limitation and was rightly rejected as time-barred. en-us Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:28:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91340 Refund under Rule 173L required returned goods to be processed and the account rendered within six months of their return to the factory. The rule did not oblige the assessee to defer processing until departmental verification, only to keep the goods available for inspection when required. As no relaxation or extension of time was obtained from the Principal Collector under Rule 173L(4), the statutory period remained unchanged. The refund claim was therefore barred by limitation and was rightly rejected as time-barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91340