https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73337 The Judge allowed the appeal, ruling that the subsequent refund application was a continuation of the original claim filed within the statutory period. It was held that the original claim was timely, and the subsequent application merely clarified and quantified the refund amount. The case was remanded to calculate the correct refund amount, with instructions to pay the appellant within three months. The decision emphasized the coherence of the refund applications and the importance of accurately computing and disbursing the refund. en-us Sat, 25 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2011 11:56:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73337 The Judge allowed the appeal, ruling that the subsequent refund application was a continuation of the original claim filed within the statutory period. It was held that the original claim was timely, and the subsequent application merely clarified and quantified the refund amount. The case was remanded to calculate the correct refund amount, with instructions to pay the appellant within three months. The decision emphasized the coherence of the refund applications and the importance of accurately computing and disbursing the refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 25 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73337