Refund claim limitation turns on whether a later duty claim is independent, not a continuation of an earlier claim.

A refund claim for duty on plastic cabinets was held to be a separate and independent claim from an earlier refund claim for accessories because it rested on a different factual basis, covered a different item and period, involved a different amount, and relied on a different exemption notification. The later application could not be treated as a mere amendment or continuation of the earlier claim. As it was filed beyond the permissible limitation period, the claim was time-barred and rejection of the refund was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund of duty on plastic cabinets was a continuation or amendment of the earlier refund claim for accessories, and consequently whether the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The original refund claim related to bought-out accessories and was founded on a different factual basis and a different notification from the later claim for duty on goods manufactured by the appellants. The later claim covered a different item, a different period, a different amount, and was made with reference to a different exemption notification. On these facts, the later claim could not be treated as a mere amendment or continuation of the earlier claim. Since it was an independent claim presented beyond the permissible period, the objection of limitation was rightly sustained.

Conclusion: The refund claim for duty on plastic cabinets was time-barred and the rejection was upheld against the assessee.

---