https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336192 Returned defective goods brought back for reprocessing were not eligible for Modvat credit because they were neither inputs nor capital goods, and permission to re-enter the goods under Rule 173H did not create credit entitlement. The six-month condition under Rule 57G was irrelevant once basic eligibility was absent. Refund of duty on reprocessed goods under Rule 173L remained subject to the mandatory limitation period under Section 11B, computed from the date the goods were returned for remaking or reprocessing. As the refund application was filed beyond that period, departmental delay in issuing certificates could not extend limitation. Both credit and refund were denied. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336192 Returned defective goods brought back for reprocessing were not eligible for Modvat credit because they were neither inputs nor capital goods, and permission to re-enter the goods under Rule 173H did not create credit entitlement. The six-month condition under Rule 57G was irrelevant once basic eligibility was absent. Refund of duty on reprocessed goods under Rule 173L remained subject to the mandatory limitation period under Section 11B, computed from the date the goods were returned for remaking or reprocessing. As the refund application was filed beyond that period, departmental delay in issuing certificates could not extend limitation. Both credit and refund were denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336192