https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98021 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. en-us Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:02:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98021 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98021