Refund limitation under Notification No. 12/2013 required verification of the relevant date before rejecting the claim.

Refund claims under Notification No. 12/2013 were not finally rejected on limitation because the authorities had not examined whether payment of premium could constitute the relevant date for computing the one-year period. As the working sheet suggested the claims may have been filed within time, the limitation question required verification at the original stage. The connected refund issues also needed fresh examination. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication, with a personal hearing to be granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims were to be rejected as time-barred under Notification No. 12/2013 dated 01.07.2013, and whether the matter required remand for fresh examination of the date of payment of premium and the other issues involved.

Analysis: The appellant's case was that the premium payments were in the nature of advance payments and that the refund applications had been filed within one year from the relevant date. This aspect had not been examined by the authorities below, and no finding had been recorded on whether the date of payment of premium could be treated as the relevant date for limitation purposes. Since the working sheet placed before the Tribunal indicated that the claim may have been within time, the limitation issue required verification at the original stage. The other issues connected with the refund claim also required examination afresh.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication after examining limitation, the relevant date of payment, the other issues involved, and after granting an opportunity of personal hearing.

---