Excise refund limitation bars duty refund on reconditioned export goods when the claim is filed after six months.

Refund of duty on scooters cleared for home consumption and later reconditioned for export was governed by the excise refund limitation under Section 11B, because the earlier duty liability was not undone merely by return and re-export under Rule 173H. The claim was filed beyond six months from the original duty payment and was therefore time-barred. Compliance with Rule 173L was the proper route for such refund relief, but it was not followed. Refund was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of duty paid on scooters later exported after reconditioning, and whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the excise refund provisions.

Analysis: The refund application was filed beyond six months from the date of payment of duty on the original clearance for home consumption. Goods received back for reconditioning and later exported under Rule 173H did not, by itself, undo the earlier duty liability. Since the claim sought refund of duty already discharged and was filed beyond the prescribed period, Section 11B applied. The appropriate course for claiming refund in such circumstances was compliance with Rule 173L, which was not followed.

Conclusion: The refund claim was correctly held to be time-barred, and the appellant was not entitled to refund.

---