Court sets aside time-barred refund claim rejection, finding limitation plea not raised in notice. Appellant's continuous correspondence considered.

The judgment set aside the impugned order rejecting a refund claim as time-barred without raising the limitation plea in the show cause notice. The court found the lower authorities exceeded the notice's scope, noting the appellant's continuous correspondence with the Department where the issue of limitation was never raised. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief as the rejection was deemed beyond the show cause notice's ambit.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on the ground of time-bar without raising limitation plea in show cause notice.

Analysis:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was illegal as the refund claim rejection was based on time-bar without the limitation plea being raised in the show cause notice. The Sr. Advocate for the appellant argued that the order of the lower authorities exceeded the scope of the show cause notice. The refund claim was verified by the Superintendent of Central Excise, and the appellant had complied with Department queries and requests for revised applications over several years. The appellant had been in constant correspondence with the Department, and the issue of time-bar was never raised during this period.

The JDR for the respondent reiterated the impugned order, stating that since the claim was not filed within six months from the date of duty payment, it was beyond the six-month period. However, upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the ground of limitation was never raised in the show cause notice. The appellant's continuous correspondence with the Department was noted, and it was highlighted that the Department had never raised the issue of limitation during this time. Consequently, the orders passed by the lower authorities were deemed to be beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant, providing consequential relief. The decision was based on the finding that the lower authorities had acted beyond the scope of the show cause notice by rejecting the refund claim on the ground of time-bar without raising the issue of limitation during the correspondence between the appellant and the Department.

---