Refund claim not time-barred where delay stemmed from authority's inaction on concessional assessment request and advance correspondence.

A refund claim arising from differential duty was not to be rejected as time-barred where the assessee had already sought concessional assessment under the notification and the authority failed to decide that request despite repeated reminders. The correspondence had put the refund claim in advance on record, and the delay in filing resulted from the authority's own inaction rather than any fault of the claimant. On those facts, the limitation objection was unsustainable in law and on facts, and the refund claim was treated as admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected as time-barred when the delay in filing it arose because the authority had not decided the application for concessional assessment under the notification.

Analysis: The appellants had applied for permission to avail assessment at the concessional rate and the authority had not acted upon the request despite reminders. The claim for refund of differential duty was stated in advance in the correspondence, and the delay was attributable to the authority's inaction. In these circumstances, rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation was not sustainable in law or on facts.

Conclusion: The time-bar objection was rejected and the refund claim was held admissible.

---