https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99604 Rule 173L refund claims are discussed in the context of returned rollers reprocessed by replacing grease caps with rain caps for use in conveyors. The text states that a pending application for extension of the one-year limit had to be decided before any rejection on limitation, that the processing fell within remaking, refining or reconditioning, and that captive consumption of the reprocessed rollers counted as clearance. It also notes that refund could not be refused merely because clearance had not occurred before filing the claim, although the refund remained capped by the duty attributable after processing. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after the extension issue was decided. en-us Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:28:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99604 Rule 173L refund claims are discussed in the context of returned rollers reprocessed by replacing grease caps with rain caps for use in conveyors. The text states that a pending application for extension of the one-year limit had to be decided before any rejection on limitation, that the processing fell within remaking, refining or reconditioning, and that captive consumption of the reprocessed rollers counted as clearance. It also notes that refund could not be refused merely because clearance had not occurred before filing the claim, although the refund remained capped by the duty attributable after processing. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after the extension issue was decided. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99604