Limitation for refund claims must account for provisional assessment and the actual filing history before rejection as time-barred.

Where refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS is claimed against a limitation objection, provisional assessment and the actual filing history of the refund claim must be examined before treating the claim as time-barred. The record suggested the assessee had approached the department earlier and was advised to wait until finalisation of assessment, but the authorities below did not fully consider that factual position or the effect of provisional assessment on the limitation period. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh verification and reconsideration of when limitation commenced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS was barred by limitation where the goods were assessed provisionally; (ii) Whether the period of one year for filing the refund claim should run from the date of payment of duty or from the date of finalisation of assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS was barred by limitation where the goods were assessed provisionally.

Analysis: The refund claim had been rejected on limitation even though the assessments were provisional. The record indicated that the assessee had earlier approached the department and was advised to seek refund after finalisation of assessment. The lower authorities did not fully examine the effect of the provisional assessment on the refund timeline or verify whether refund claims had been filed during the provisional stage.

Conclusion: The issue required fresh examination and could not be finally upheld against the assessee on the present record.

Issue (ii): Whether the period of one year for filing the refund claim should run from the date of payment of duty or from the date of finalisation of assessment.

Analysis: The notification treated the relevant date as the date of payment of duty, but the assessee's case was that, where assessment remained provisional and the department itself declined to entertain an earlier claim, limitation should be examined with reference to finalisation. The Tribunal held that this legal contention and the associated facts had not been properly considered by the authorities below.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for factual verification and decision on the legal issue concerning commencement of limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration after verifying the factual matrix relating to provisional assessment and the filing of refund claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Where refund entitlement under a special refund notification is linked to a limitation period, the effect of provisional assessment and the actual filing history of refund claims must be examined before rejecting the claim as time-barred.

---