Limitation cannot defeat a refund or exemption claim that must be examined on merits; rejection order set aside.

A refund or exemption claim rejected solely on limitation was found unsustainable where the claim otherwise required consideration on merits. The Court applied the principle that limitation should not be used to defeat an otherwise just claim and held the impugned order contrary to that approach. The rejection order was set aside, and the authority was directed to examine the petitioner's claim afresh on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under the exemption notification could be rejected as time-barred, and whether the impugned order declining relief on limitation was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The order records that the claim for exemption/refund was rejected solely on the ground of limitation. Reliance was placed on the principle that the plea of limitation should not be invoked by the revenue to defeat an otherwise just claim, and the impugned order was found contrary to that principle.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside. The authority was directed to consider the petitioner's claim on merits in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of setting aside the rejection order, with the claim left for fresh decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund or exemption claim should not be defeated merely by invoking limitation where the claim otherwise requires consideration on merits.

---