https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111776 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. en-us Mon, 17 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111776 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111776