Refund limitation: a modified claim based on the same services was treated as a continuation of the timely original claim.

A modified refund claim filed later was treated as a continuation of an earlier claim filed within the prescribed period, because it was only a reduced claim based on the same services and not a fresh, independent request. The earlier refund application had been lodged in time, and the later modification did not alter the underlying basis of entitlement. On that footing, the claim was not barred by limitation, and rejection on limitation was unsustainable. The finding was in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the modified refund claim filed on 27.01.2009 was barred by limitation or was a continuation of the earlier refund claim filed within time.

Analysis: The refund claim originally filed on 12.12.2008 was within the prescribed period. The later claim was only a modified/reduced claim based on the same set of services and was not a fresh, independent claim. The claim was therefore to be treated as continuation of the earlier timely claim, consistent with the amended notification and the cited circular.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred and the rejection on limitation was unsustainable; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

---