https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43235 Refund of duty on returned goods was held to be barred by limitation because the six-month period under Section 11B ran from the date of re-entry of the goods into the factory, and the claim was filed well after that time. Compliance with Rule 173L was treated as a substantive condition, not a mere technical requirement, because timely submission of the prescribed accounts was necessary for departmental verification. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked to bypass the statutory bar or excuse non-compliance where entitlement itself was not established, so relief was refused. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:53:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43235 Refund of duty on returned goods was held to be barred by limitation because the six-month period under Section 11B ran from the date of re-entry of the goods into the factory, and the claim was filed well after that time. Compliance with Rule 173L was treated as a substantive condition, not a mere technical requirement, because timely submission of the prescribed accounts was necessary for departmental verification. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked to bypass the statutory bar or excuse non-compliance where entitlement itself was not established, so relief was refused. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43235