https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259056 Refund claims for Special Additional Duty filed within the one-year period at the wrong customs office were held not to be time-barred when later forwarded to the jurisdictional officer after expiry of that period. The Tribunal treated the original timely presentation as the ative fact and applied the principle that limitation should not defeat a claim merely because the papers were lodged before an incorrect authority. The refund notification required filing before the jurisdictional customs officer, but the mistaken filing by the consultant did not nullify the timely claim. The refund applications were therefore treated as within limitation. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:13:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259056 Refund claims for Special Additional Duty filed within the one-year period at the wrong customs office were held not to be time-barred when later forwarded to the jurisdictional officer after expiry of that period. The Tribunal treated the original timely presentation as the ative fact and applied the principle that limitation should not defeat a claim merely because the papers were lodged before an incorrect authority. The refund notification required filing before the jurisdictional customs officer, but the mistaken filing by the consultant did not nullify the timely claim. The refund applications were therefore treated as within limitation. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 31 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259056