Pre-deposit refund limitation principle: money paid before notice was refundable after final adjudication, and the claim was not time-barred.

Amount paid before issuance of the show-cause notice was treated as a pre-deposit linked to the pending proceedings, not as ordinary duty payment. Refund could be considered only after the Tribunal passed its final order and the adjudication attained finality; once the penalty was reduced and the matter concluded, the refund claim became maintainable. The limitation objection was rejected because the period for refund was not counted from the original payment made in 1994, but from the point when the claim first became legally enforceable as a refund of pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount paid by the assessee prior to the show-cause notice could be treated as a pre-deposit and whether the refund claim for the balance amount was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The amount was paid before the issue of the show-cause notice, but it was treated as a deposit connected with the pending proceedings and could be considered only after the Tribunal passed its final order. Once the Tribunal reduced the penalty and the adjudication attained finality, the refund claim became maintainable. The contention that the claim was time-barred on the footing that the payment was merely duty paid in 1994 was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The amount was held to be a pre-deposit for refund purposes and the claim was not barred by limitation.

---