Limitation for refund claims turns on timely dispatch and procedural acknowledgement requirements cannot defeat merits-based review.

A refund claim posted within the limitation period was treated as timely where the delay in actual receipt was beyond the claimant's control. The departmental requirement to obtain an acknowledgement was regarded as a procedural administrative guideline, not a substantive affecting maintainability. On that basis, the claim should have been examined on merits rather than rejected as time-barred. The rejection was not sustained, and the matter was remitted to the original authority for fresh consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B and whether non-compliance with the departmental requirement of obtaining acknowledgement could justify rejection of the claim.

Analysis: The claim for refund was admittedly posted within the limitation period and the delay in actual receipt was beyond the appellant's control. The requirement to obtain an acknowledgement was treated as a procedural administrative guideline and not as a substantive condition affecting maintainability. The refund claim therefore ought to have been examined on merits rather than rejected as time-barred.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim as barred by limitation was not sustained and the matter was remitted to the original authority for fresh decision on merits.

---