https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299384 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied merely because accounts of returned goods were rendered to the Assistant Commissioner after six months, where the goods were admittedly returned, reprocessed, re-cleared on payment of duty, and the relevant records were maintained. The procedural requirement in Rule 173L(3) was treated as intended to prevent misuse of the refund scheme, not to defeat a claim otherwise supported by substantive compliance. On these facts, the delayed rendering of accounts was a procedural lapse only, and it did not justify rejection of the refund claim. en-us Thu, 29 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:51:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299384 Refund under Rule 173L could not be denied merely because accounts of returned goods were rendered to the Assistant Commissioner after six months, where the goods were admittedly returned, reprocessed, re-cleared on payment of duty, and the relevant records were maintained. The procedural requirement in Rule 173L(3) was treated as intended to prevent misuse of the refund scheme, not to defeat a claim otherwise supported by substantive compliance. On these facts, the delayed rendering of accounts was a procedural lapse only, and it did not justify rejection of the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299384