Limitation for refund claims may run from filing in the field office when practice and proper addressing support timely receipt.

For refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, filing with the jurisdictional range office within the prescribed period may satisfy limitation where the application is addressed to the Assistant Collector, is received in the ordinary course under the established practice, and is not then returned as defective. The relevant date for limitation can be the date of receipt in the proper field office rather than the later date of transmission to the Assistant Collector. On that basis, a refund claim should not be rejected as time-barred if these facts are established, and the matter must be examined afresh on timely filing and prevailing practice.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim is liable to be rejected as time-barred when it is addressed to the Assistant Collector but filed in time with the jurisdictional range office or inspector and the delay occurs in transmission to the Assistant Collector.

Analysis: The refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 had to be made to the Assistant Collector, but the material question was whether presentation in the range office within time, in accordance with the prevailing practice, was sufficient where the application was not returned as defective and was forwarded later. The Tribunal applied the earlier decisions recognising that the relevant date for limitation could be the date of receipt in the proper field office when the claim was addressed to the Assistant Collector and accepted in the normal course without objection. The lower authorities were therefore required to verify whether the claim had been so addressed, whether it was filed within the prescribed period in the range office, and whether the established practice supported such filing.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred if those facts were established, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting refund on limitation was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh examination on the question of timely filing in accordance with practice.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation purposes in a refund claim, filing with the jurisdictional range office in the ordinary course of the established practice may be treated as sufficient where the application is addressed to the proper authority and is not rejected as defective at the time of receipt.

---