Refund claims for returned goods must satisfy Section 11B limitation, and informal correspondence is not a valid application.

A refund claim for duty on goods returned to the factory for reprocessing under Rule 173L was held to fall within the six-month limitation in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the relevant date for returned goods is the date of their entry into the factory for remaking, reconditioning or similar treatment. Section 11B(4) was held not to exclude this situation. A letter dated 14-7-1981 was not accepted as a valid refund application because it indicated that refund applications would be filed later and was addressed to the Superintendent rather than the competent Assistant Collector. The claim was therefore barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim under Rule 173L in respect of duty paid on goods returned to the factory for reprocessing was subject to the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the correspondence dated 14-7-1981 could be treated as a valid refund application.

Analysis: The refund claim was made in the context of goods received back into the factory for reprocessing under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The applicable limitation provision was held to be Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the statute specifically defines the relevant date for returned goods as the date of entry into the factory for being remade, refined, reconditioned, or subjected to similar process. The saving under Section 11B(4) was held not to cover such a situation. The letter dated 14-7-1981 was not treated as a refund application because it stated that refund applications would be filed later and was addressed to the Superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector, who was the competent authority.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B, and the appeal failed.

---