Refund of duty paid under wrong unit code remains admissible, and timely first filing preserves limitation despite re-filing defects.

Duty paid by one unit against another unit's liability, where the payment arose from an ERP or code error and the underlying duty liability had already been discharged, remained refundable in principle; the refund was therefore admissible on merits. For limitation, a refund application first filed within the prescribed period did not become time-barred because it was later returned and re-filed after defects were pointed out, so the original filing date governed Section 11B limitation. The refund claim thus succeeded on both merits and limitation, with consequential relief following.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether duty paid by the appellant's Daman unit towards the liability of its Halol unit, due to ERP error, was refundable; (ii) whether limitation under Section 11B for the refund claim had to be reckoned from the date of first filing of the refund application or the date of re-filing after return by the department.

Issue (i): whether duty paid by the appellant's Daman unit towards the liability of its Halol unit, due to ERP error, was refundable.

Analysis: The payment was made towards a duty liability that actually pertained to another unit of the same assessee group, and the liability in question stood discharged. On the basis of the principle that a payment made under a mistaken code or mistaken unit identification does not lose its character as duty paid to the Government, the amount paid in excess by the appellant was refundable in principle.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant and the refund was held to be admissible on merits.

Issue (ii): whether limitation under Section 11B for the refund claim had to be reckoned from the date of first filing of the refund application or the date of re-filing after return by the department.

Analysis: The original refund application had been lodged within the prescribed period, and it was only after departmental objections that the application was returned and filed again. The governing principle applied was that where the refund claim is first presented within time, the subsequent re-filing after correction of defects does not shift the relevant filing date for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The limitation issue was decided in favour of the appellant, and the refund claim was held not to be time barred.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims succeeded on both merits and limitation, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim first filed within limitation remains within time even if returned and re-submitted later, and duty paid by mistake against the wrong unit or code remains refundable when the underlying tax liability has in fact been discharged.

---