SAD refund limitation: prior written intimation and DRI custody of documents justified exclusion of the delay period.

Special Additional Duty refund claims were considered not barred by limitation where the assessee had promptly informed customs in writing that it intended to seek refund but could not file the formal application because original documents remained in DRI custody. The period during which the supporting documents were unavailable was treated as excludable for computing limitation, consistent with the refund notification and the governing limitation principle. On that basis, the challenge to limitation failed and the assessee was held entitled to the SAD refund with consequential interest in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty was barred by limitation and whether the period during which the supporting documents remained with the DRI could be excluded while computing limitation.

Analysis: The assessee had informed the customs authorities in writing soon after the search and seizure that it was entitled to refund but could not file the formal claim because the original documents were in the custody of the DRI. The later formal claim was therefore treated as having been initiated within time. The exclusion of the period for which the documents remained unavailable was also accepted as consistent with the governing limitation principle and the terms of the refund notification.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the exclusion of the relevant period was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the assessee was held entitled to the SAD refund with consequential interest in accordance with law.

---