Refund claims cannot be rejected on unnotified grounds when the applicable notification has superseded the earlier one.

An appellate authority cannot reject a refund claim on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice, particularly where the original authority had already found the claim timely. Where Notification No. 9/2009-ST had been superseded, the assessee was required to proceed under Notification No. 17/2011-ST, and rejection for filing under the earlier notification was unsustainable. The refund claim was therefore maintainable under the applicable notification, the rejection was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation and filing under the wrong notification was justified.

Analysis: The refund claim was not proposed to be rejected on limitation in the show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority had already found that the claim under Notification No. 17/2011-ST was within time. The appellate authority could not travel beyond the show-cause notice or overturn an unchallenged finding of timeliness. Since Notification No. 9/2009-ST had been superseded by Notification No. 17/2011-ST, the assessee was required to proceed under the latter notification, and the rejection based on the former was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was unjustified and was set aside; the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be maintainable under the applicable notification, and the assessee was granted consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot reject a refund claim on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice, particularly where the original authority has found the claim to be within time and the applicable notification had superseded the earlier one.

---