Refund claim limitation and show-cause notice limits govern rejection; new grounds cannot justify denial of refund.

A refund claim for exports was held to be within limitation because it was filed within one year from the date of export. The rejection was also set aside because the lower authorities relied on grounds such as non-production of co-relation evidence and non-filing in the prescribed format, even though those grounds were not in the show-cause notice. As the show-cause notice forms the foundation of the proceeding, rejection on new grounds was unsustainable. The refund rejection was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation; (ii) whether rejection of the refund claim on grounds not stated in the show-cause notice was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The refund related to exports made during July 2008 to September 2008, and the claim was filed on 30.03.2009. Applying the time limit recognised under Notification No. 17/09 dated 07.07.2009, the claim was filed within one year from the date of export.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of the refund claim on grounds not stated in the show-cause notice was sustainable.

Analysis: The lower authorities introduced grounds such as non-production of co-relation evidence and non-filing in the prescribed format, even though the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the adjudication order had travelled beyond the show-cause notice. Since the show-cause notice forms the foundation of the proceeding, new grounds could not validly be used to reject the claim.

Conclusion: The rejection on grounds beyond the show-cause notice was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The refund rejection was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be rejected on grounds not contained in the show-cause notice, and a claim filed within the prescribed period cannot be denied as time-barred.

---