Substantive refund entitlement prevails over procedural delay when exemption conditions are otherwise satisfied.

Refund claims under an exemption or refund notification scheme should not be denied merely because the application was filed late where substantive eligibility is otherwise established. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had already sanctioned the refund, and the appellate rejection rested substantially on limitation alone. It followed the binding view that procedural delay in complying with refund formalities cannot defeat the underlying entitlement when the exemption conditions are otherwise met. On those facts, the refund was not to be treated as time-barred and the assessee remained entitled to the refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was liable to be rejected as time-barred and whether delay in filing the refund application could deny the substantive refund benefit.

Analysis: The refund arose out of the exemption/refund notification scheme and had earlier been sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority rejected a substantial part of the claim only on limitation. The Tribunal followed the binding view that once eligibility for exemption and refund is otherwise established, denial of the benefit merely on account of delay in complying with procedural requirements would cause injustice. Procedural lapse, by itself, was held not to defeat the substantive entitlement.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred in the facts of the case, and the assessee was entitled to the refund claim.

---