https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52682 Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules was held admissible where duty-paid goods were returned for reconditioning after the prescribed period, because the competent authority had condoned the delay. The Tribunal read the relaxation power under Rule 173L(4) as extending to the rule as a whole, including the conditions governing return and reconditioning of the goods. On that basis, the earlier removal and subsequent return of the goods were treated as sufficient to satisfy the refund requirement, and the claim was accepted in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:48:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52682 Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules was held admissible where duty-paid goods were returned for reconditioning after the prescribed period, because the competent authority had condoned the delay. The Tribunal read the relaxation power under Rule 173L(4) as extending to the rule as a whole, including the conditions governing return and reconditioning of the goods. On that basis, the earlier removal and subsequent return of the goods were treated as sufficient to satisfy the refund requirement, and the claim was accepted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52682