Refund limitation under Customs notification cannot be extended without express condonation power; time-barred claim rejected.

A refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. had to be filed within one year from payment of additional customs duty, and the notification provided no power to condone delay. The CESTAT Chennai noted that time extensions granted for duty payment or return filing in Tamil Nadu did not apply to delayed refund claims. It held that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Tribunal could extend the prescribed period on equitable grounds where the scheme contained no condonation provision. The refund claim was therefore time-barred, the rejection was sustained, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended, could be condoned and whether the refund claim filed beyond one year from payment of additional duty of customs was maintainable.

Analysis: The notification required the importer to file the refund claim before expiry of one year from payment of the additional duty of customs. No provision in the notification or its amendments empowered condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that the extension of time granted by the authorities for payment of duty or filing of returns in Tamil Nadu did not extend to delayed refund claims. It further held that it could not travel beyond the statutory scheme to condone delay where no such power existed.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned and the refund claim was time-barred. The finding was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The refund rejection was sustained and the appeal was dismissed for want of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund notification prescribes a time limit and contains no provision for condonation, the adjudicating authority or tribunal has no power to extend that period on equitable grounds.

---