Timely refund claim before wrong Customs office not barred by limitation when later forwarded to the proper authority.

A refund claim filed within the prescribed limitation period was not rendered time-barred merely because it was first lodged with a wrong Customs office and later forwarded to the jurisdictional authority. The decisive factor was timely presentation of the application, and the department's internal forwarding could not change that fact. Relying on the governing High Court view and the appellant's earlier case, the tribunal held that filing before the correct authority was not, by itself, a basis to treat an otherwise timely claim as barred. The rejection on limitation was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim filed within the prescribed period before a wrong Customs authority could be rejected as time-barred when it was later forwarded to the jurisdictional authority.

Analysis: The claim was filed within time, though before an authority other than the jurisdictional Customs officer. The decisive factor was that the refund application was originally presented within the stipulated limitation period, and the later forwarding of the papers by the department did not alter the fact of timely filing. Following the earlier decision in the appellant's own case, which in turn relied on the governing High Court view, the requirement of filing before the correct authority did not convert a timely application into a barred one merely because it was initially lodged at the wrong office.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the rejection on that ground was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

---