Refund claim by letter treated as valid where excess duty was intimated earlier and later application was only a continuation.

An assessee's letter to the Superintendent, informing excess duty payment and seeking refund, was treated as a valid refund claim even though the formal application was filed later. The earlier letter was held to constitute a clear assertion of the refund demand, and the later application was treated as a continuation of that original claim rather than a fresh request. Addressing the letter to the Superintendent instead of the Assistant Collector did not invalidate it. The surrounding circumstance that the excess duty was allegedly to be adjusted on finalisation of RT-12 assessment also supported the assessee's position, so the limitation objection was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's letter addressed to the Superintendent, claiming refund of excess duty, constituted a valid refund claim and saved the claim from being treated as time-barred.

Analysis: The assessee had specifically intimated the excess duty payment and requested refund well before the formal refund application was filed. The earlier letter was treated as a clear staking of the refund claim, and the later formal claim was regarded as only a continuation of that original demand. The fact that the letter was addressed to the Superintendent rather than the Assistant Collector did not invalidate the claim. The surrounding circumstances, including the alleged assurance that the excess duty would be adjusted on finalisation of RT-12 assessment, supported the assessee's case. The limitation objection was therefore not accepted on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The letter dated 17-5-1984 constituted a valid refund claim, the subsequent formal claim was not a fresh claim, and the refund was not barred by limitation.

---