https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51814 A refund claim under Rule 173L was held not time-barred where it was filed within six months, computed from the day after receipt of the goods. Delay in filing the D-3 intimation did not defeat refund when the factory was closed on the intervening day, the purpose of intimation was verification, and no prejudice or pre-intimation reprocessing was shown; the delay was treated as procedural and substantially complied with. Refund was also not denied merely because reprocessed goods were exported under bond, but it was limited to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods. Where goods had not yet been cleared after reprocessing, factual verification and quantification were remitted to the adjudicating authority. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:21:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51814 A refund claim under Rule 173L was held not time-barred where it was filed within six months, computed from the day after receipt of the goods. Delay in filing the D-3 intimation did not defeat refund when the factory was closed on the intervening day, the purpose of intimation was verification, and no prejudice or pre-intimation reprocessing was shown; the delay was treated as procedural and substantially complied with. Refund was also not denied merely because reprocessed goods were exported under bond, but it was limited to the duty payable on the reprocessed goods. Where goods had not yet been cleared after reprocessing, factual verification and quantification were remitted to the adjudicating authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51814