https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47347 A refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be rejected as time-barred where the record shows that the application was filed within the prescribed period. A factual assumption that the claim was lodged after six months is insufficient to sustain denial once timely filing is established. The rule also confers discretion to condone delay in furnishing accounts relating to remaking of returned machinery, and a minor procedural lapse in that regard should not defeat refund when the substantive claim was timely and the department had accepted the remaking. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:43:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47347 A refund claim under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be rejected as time-barred where the record shows that the application was filed within the prescribed period. A factual assumption that the claim was lodged after six months is insufficient to sustain denial once timely filing is established. The rule also confers discretion to condone delay in furnishing accounts relating to remaking of returned machinery, and a minor procedural lapse in that regard should not defeat refund when the substantive claim was timely and the department had accepted the remaking. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47347