Strict compliance with refund limitation period required; claim filed beyond the prescribed time was rejected as time-barred.

A refund claim under Notification No. 17/09-ST was held time-barred because the notification required filing within one year from export of the goods, and the applications were filed after that period. The argument that limitation should be computed on a quarterly basis was rejected for lack of statutory support in the notification. Authorities cited by the appellant were distinguished because they did not interpret the same limitation condition. The refund rejection was therefore justified, reinforcing that a prescribed refund period under the notification must be strictly complied with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim filed under Notification No. 17/09-ST dated 07.07.2009 was barred by limitation for having been filed beyond one year from the date of export of goods.

Analysis: The refund notification stipulated that the claim had to be filed within one year from the date of exportation of the goods. The record showed that the refund applications were filed beyond that period. The contention that the limitation should be computed on a quarterly basis had no statutory support in the notification. The decisions relied upon by the appellant were distinguished as they did not involve interpretation of the same limitation condition under the notification.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and its rejection was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the limitation issue and were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund notification prescribes a specific time limit for filing the claim, that condition must be strictly complied with and a claim filed beyond the prescribed period is liable to be rejected as time-barred.

---