https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91667 Refund of duty on finished excisable goods returned by the consignee after rejection was not admissible because the return did not fall within Rule 173H, which was limited to specified categories of returned goods, and there was no repair, re-making or reconditioning to attract Rule 173L. The refund claim was also filed beyond one year from payment of duty and was therefore time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The alternative claim was further affected by unjust enrichment. Refund was accordingly rejected. en-us Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:07:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91667 Refund of duty on finished excisable goods returned by the consignee after rejection was not admissible because the return did not fall within Rule 173H, which was limited to specified categories of returned goods, and there was no repair, re-making or reconditioning to attract Rule 173L. The refund claim was also filed beyond one year from payment of duty and was therefore time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The alternative claim was further affected by unjust enrichment. Refund was accordingly rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91667