https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52937 The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court confirmed that the repair activity does not amount to manufacture and directed consideration of refund in light of the principle of unjust enrichment. The appeal was upheld, setting aside the rejection based on limitation, and remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a decision within three months, emphasizing the importance of adhering to judicial directives and principles like unjust enrichment in deciding refund claims. en-us Wed, 12 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:06:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52937 The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court confirmed that the repair activity does not amount to manufacture and directed consideration of refund in light of the principle of unjust enrichment. The appeal was upheld, setting aside the rejection based on limitation, and remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a decision within three months, emphasizing the importance of adhering to judicial directives and principles like unjust enrichment in deciding refund claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52937