Substance over form in excise refund limitation: claim routed through departmental hierarchy was treated as timely filed.

A refund claim addressed to the proper excise authority was treated as filed within limitation when it was presented through the jurisdictional Superintendent in the normal departmental course. The Tribunal applied a substance-over-form approach, holding that the routing of the application through the office hierarchy did not defeat timeliness where the claim was not returned as defective and was received without objection. On that basis, the claim was held not time-barred, the adverse order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for consideration of the refund on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector but routed through the jurisdictional Superintendent could be treated as filed on the date of receipt by the Superintendent for the purpose of limitation under the Central Excise refund provisions.

Analysis: The refund application was directed to the Assistant Collector and was merely presented through the Range office in accordance with the prevailing practice. The Tribunal applied the principle that the substance of the presentation, and not the physical route alone, governs limitation where the claim is addressed to the proper authority but is processed through the departmental hierarchy. The claim was not returned as defective and was received in the normal course without objection, which supported the conclusion that the application had effectively been made within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim addressed to the proper authority is treated as made in time when it is duly presented through the departmental office in the established course of practice, even if it reaches the Assistant Collector later.

---