https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80592 A refund application addressed to the proper authority was treated as validly filed even though it was physically presented before the Superintendent, because the departmental office received, retained, and processed it as part of the customary routing for such claims. The Tribunal emphasised that procedural filing requirements should not defeat a substantive refund claim where the papers reached the Assistant Collector through the established office channel and departmental practice supported that mode of presentation. On those facts, the claim was held to be within time and not barred by limitation, with consequential relief following from the valid filing. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:43:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80592 A refund application addressed to the proper authority was treated as validly filed even though it was physically presented before the Superintendent, because the departmental office received, retained, and processed it as part of the customary routing for such claims. The Tribunal emphasised that procedural filing requirements should not defeat a substantive refund claim where the papers reached the Assistant Collector through the established office channel and departmental practice supported that mode of presentation. On those facts, the claim was held to be within time and not barred by limitation, with consequential relief following from the valid filing. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80592