Refund claim under excise law failed where no manufacture occurred and the alternate limitation-based claim was time-barred.

Refund under Rule 173L was unavailable because the returned machine had not undergone any process amounting to manufacture, a fact the assessee did not dispute. The alternative claim under Section 11B also failed because it was raised after the duty payment had become time-barred, and filing the original refund application under a different rule did not extend or revive limitation for the alternate ground. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable and was correctly rejected as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was maintainable under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, and whether the assessee could invoke an alternative claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act despite the bar of limitation.

Analysis: The returned machine was not subjected to any process amounting to manufacture, and the assessee did not dispute that position. In those circumstances, the claim under Rule 173L could not succeed. The alternative plea under Section 11B was raised after the duty payment had become time-barred, and the fact that the original refund application was filed under a different rule did not extend or revive limitation for the alternate ground. The lower authorities therefore correctly rejected the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and was rightly rejected as time-barred. The decision is against the assessee.

---