SAD refund claim within limitation cannot be rejected for being a second monthly filing where earlier inclusion was impossible.

A departmental circular requiring consolidation of SAD refund claims into one claim per month could not defeat a refund application filed within the statutory one-year limitation period. Where the later claim covered goods that were unsold when the earlier claim was filed and could not have been included then, rejection solely because it was a second claim in the same month would make the statutory refund right ineffective. The procedural instruction in the circular had to yield to the substantive entitlement under the refund notification. The second claim was therefore maintainable and the refund was allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second SAD refund claim filed in the same month could be rejected for breach of the instruction that only one refund claim per importer per month be filed, when the statutory one-year period for claiming refund under the notification was about to expire.

Analysis: The circular relied upon by the department prescribed consolidation of refund claims on a monthly basis and contemplated a single claim in a month, but also recognised the position where the one-year period was expiring. The goods covered by the later claim were unsold when the first claim was filed and were sold only later in the month, so they could not have been included in the earlier claim. Rejecting the later claim merely because it was the second claim in the month would have made the statutory one-year limitation under the refund notification ineffective. The procedural requirement in the circular could not override the substantive right to refund within the limitation period.

Conclusion: The second refund claim was maintainable and could not be denied solely for being filed in the same month as an earlier claim. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the refund claim was held allowable despite the alleged procedural violation.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement in a departmental circular cannot defeat a refund claim filed within the statutory limitation period where strict compliance would render the substantive refund right illusory.

---