https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126136 Refund under Rule 173L was denied because the returned goods were received back after the prescribed one-year period, and no application for extension of time or condonation was made within the permissible period. The plea that the D-3 intimation amounted to an implied request for extension was rejected. Earlier decisions did not assist the assessee because one involved actual condonation on request, while the other turned on writ jurisdiction to relax the requirement. The rejection of refund was therefore upheld for non-compliance with the time limit governing receipt back of returned goods. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:02:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126136 Refund under Rule 173L was denied because the returned goods were received back after the prescribed one-year period, and no application for extension of time or condonation was made within the permissible period. The plea that the D-3 intimation amounted to an implied request for extension was rejected. Earlier decisions did not assist the assessee because one involved actual condonation on request, while the other turned on writ jurisdiction to relax the requirement. The rejection of refund was therefore upheld for non-compliance with the time limit governing receipt back of returned goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126136