https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110243 Rule 173L did not require prior payment of duty on reprocessed goods before a refund claim could be filed; the phrase "duty payable" was read as the duty becoming due on eventual clearance of the repaired goods, not as a condition precedent. A claim filed within time after the goods were re-entered for repair was therefore maintainable and could remain pending until the goods were actually cleared on duty payment. Section 11B, read with the explanation for returned goods, supported filing the claim within six months from re-entry. The refund claim was admissible and refund was allowed. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:14:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110243 Rule 173L did not require prior payment of duty on reprocessed goods before a refund claim could be filed; the phrase "duty payable" was read as the duty becoming due on eventual clearance of the repaired goods, not as a condition precedent. A claim filed within time after the goods were re-entered for repair was therefore maintainable and could remain pending until the goods were actually cleared on duty payment. Section 11B, read with the explanation for returned goods, supported filing the claim within six months from re-entry. The refund claim was admissible and refund was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110243