Timely refund filing before the wrong customs office was not barred by limitation under the SAD refund notification.

Refund claims for Special Additional Duty filed within the one-year period at the wrong customs office were held not to be time-barred when later forwarded to the jurisdictional officer after expiry of that period. The Tribunal treated the original timely presentation as the ative fact and applied the principle that limitation should not defeat a claim merely because the papers were lodged before an incorrect authority. The refund notification required filing before the jurisdictional customs officer, but the mistaken filing by the consultant did not nullify the timely claim. The refund applications were therefore treated as within limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim for refund of Special Additional Duty filed within the prescribed period before a wrong customs office, and later forwarded to the jurisdictional customs officer after expiry of one year, is hit by limitation under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007.

Analysis: The refund notification required the claim to be filed before the jurisdictional customs officer, but the claims had in fact been lodged within time at another customs office due to a mistake of the consultant. The claims were subsequently forwarded to the proper jurisdictional office. The decisive fact was that the refund applications were originally filed within the stipulated one-year period, though not before the correct authority. Relying on the principle that filing within time should not be defeated merely because the papers were presented before a wrong authority, the Tribunal held that the claim was not barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not time-barred, and the appeals were allowed.

---