Limitation for refund claims turns on timely filing, while minor procedural defects cannot make an in-time claim time-barred.

A refund claim for unutilised service credit was not barred by limitation because the original claim was filed within time, even though it was initially incomplete and later supported by additional documents. The deficiencies relating to attestation of the shipping bill, description of the tax-paying document, and particulars in the CENVAT credit register extract were treated as minor or procedural, not as grounds to treat the claim as time-barred. The limitation objection was rejected, the rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for unutilised service credit was barred by limitation when an incomplete claim had already been filed within time.

Analysis: The claim was first filed on 1-4-2009, though it was incomplete and later supplemented with documents. The deficiency relating to attestation of the shipping bill was treated as misplaced because the original shipping bill had already been filed. The other objections were held to be minor, including the description of the tax paying document and the particulars in the CENVAT credit register extract. On that basis, the claim was treated as having been filed on 1-4-2009 and therefore within the period of limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the order rejecting the claim was set aside. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be rejected as time-barred where the original claim was filed within limitation and the defects subsequently pointed out are minor or procedural in nature.

---