https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119648 A refund claim was examined for limitation in relation to duty paid on reprocessed goods, and the request for relaxation under Rule 173L(4) was treated as misconceived because that provision had ceased to exist. The question whether the refund claim, to the extent connected with duty paid in December 2002, was within time was left open for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on the correct factual and legal basis. en-us Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:34:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119648 A refund claim was examined for limitation in relation to duty paid on reprocessed goods, and the request for relaxation under Rule 173L(4) was treated as misconceived because that provision had ceased to exist. The question whether the refund claim, to the extent connected with duty paid in December 2002, was within time was left open for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on the correct factual and legal basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119648