https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167575 A refund claim for duty on goods returned to the factory for reprocessing under Rule 173L was held to fall within the six-month limitation in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the relevant date for returned goods is the date of their entry into the factory for remaking, reconditioning or similar treatment. Section 11B(4) was held not to exclude this situation. A letter dated 14-7-1981 was not accepted as a valid refund application because it indicated that refund applications would be filed later and was addressed to the Superintendent rather than the competent Assistant Collector. The claim was therefore barred by limitation. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Dec 2014 11:37:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167575 A refund claim for duty on goods returned to the factory for reprocessing under Rule 173L was held to fall within the six-month limitation in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the relevant date for returned goods is the date of their entry into the factory for remaking, reconditioning or similar treatment. Section 11B(4) was held not to exclude this situation. A letter dated 14-7-1981 was not accepted as a valid refund application because it indicated that refund applications would be filed later and was addressed to the Superintendent rather than the competent Assistant Collector. The claim was therefore barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167575