Refund claim limitation: departmental filing before the wrong Customs office still preserved timeliness after internal transfer.

A refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was treated as timely because it was first presented before one Customs Commissionerate, processed further by the department, and later transferred internally to another Commissionerate. The initial office did not reject the claim for lack of jurisdiction; instead, it sought additional documents, so the filing was regarded as having remained within the Customs Department from the original date of presentation. On that basis, the limitation objection was not sustained, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration of the refund claim with an opportunity to support it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could be treated as filed in time despite being initially presented before the wrong Customs Commissionerate and thereafter transferred within the department.

Analysis: The claim was first filed before the Sea Customs Commissionerate, which did not reject it for want of jurisdiction but processed it further and called for additional documents. The claim was subsequently transferred to the Air Cargo Complex Commissionerate. In these circumstances, the filing was treated as having remained with the Customs Department throughout, and the date of presentation before the Sea Customs Commissionerate was taken as the relevant filing date. Since the appellant had not been informed earlier of the jurisdictional mistake, the matter was considered fit for reconsideration on that basis.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund matter was remanded to the original authority to consider the claim as if it had been filed within time, with opportunity to the appellant to support the claim.

Final Conclusion: The rejection on limitation was not sustained, and the refund claim was sent back for fresh consideration on the basis that the initial departmental filing preserved the claim.

---