Rule 5 refund claims are subject to Section 11B limitation where the claim is filed beyond one year.

Refund claims under Rule 5 were held to be subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B through the applicable notification, and the earlier contrary authority was distinguished because the relevant enabling paragraph was not then in force. As the refund related to export of services, the FIRCs were received between October and December 2015, making the refund due on 01.01.2016; the claim filed on 08.02.2017 was therefore beyond time. The refund was consequently treated as time-barred and correctly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim filed under Rule 5 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The refund arose from export of services and the FIRCs were received during October to December 2015. On that basis, the refund for the quarter became due on 01.01.2016, while the claim was filed on 08.02.2017, which was beyond one year. The claim was therefore hit by the limitation period. The applicability of Section 11B to refund claims under Rule 5 followed from the notification governing such refunds, and the earlier authority relied upon by the appellant was distinguished because the relevant enabling paragraph was not in force in that period.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and was rightly rejected.

---