Refund claim limitation runs from first filing date; later cure of defects does not extend time.

A refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) was filed within the prescribed period, and a later deficiency memo only required missing documents to be cured. The key limitation issue was whether rectifying defects shifted the filing date for computing time limits. The filing date remained the date of first presentation, and subsequent removal of defects did not postpone limitation. The refund claim was therefore not time-barred, and the limitation objection was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 was barred by limitation because defects were cured after the original filing date.

Analysis: The refund application was originally filed within the prescribed period. A deficiency memo only pointed out missing documents and the defects were later removed. The decisive question was whether the date of curing defects could replace the original date of filing for limitation purposes. The filing date remained the date on which the claim was first presented, and the subsequent removal of defects did not postpone that date for computing limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred. The objection on limitation was rejected and the claim was held to have been filed within time.

---