Amended refund limitation under customs law governs later claims, making belated refund applications time-barred.

A refund notification originally imposed no filing deadline, but its amendment introduced a one-year limit for claiming refund of additional customs duty. Refund claims filed after the amendment came into force were governed by the amended limitation period, and claims filed beyond that period were not maintainable. On the stated facts, the claimant admitted filing after expiry of the prescribed time, so the refund was correctly rejected as time-barred and the appellate order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was barred by limitation after the amendment introduced by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., and whether the amended one-year time limit applied to the refund claims in question.

Analysis: The original notification did not prescribe any time limit for filing the refund claim, but Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. substituted the relevant clause and required the claim to be filed within one year from the date of payment of additional customs duty. The dispute related to refund claims filed after the amendment had come into force, and the claimant did not dispute that the claims were filed beyond the prescribed period. The reasoning accepted that the amendment operated for refunds arising after its commencement and that the claim could not succeed once filed beyond the one-year period.

Conclusion: The refund claim was correctly rejected as time-barred, and the order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund notification is amended to prescribe a limitation period, refund claims filed after the amendment's operation are governed by the amended time limit and are liable to be rejected if filed beyond that period.

---