https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259107 A SAD refund claim filed within the prescribed time was held maintainable even though it was presented before the wrong Customs Commissionerate, because timely filing was treated as sufficient and the mistaken forum was not fatal to entitlement. The rejection of the timely claim was therefore set aside. By contrast, refund claims filed after expiry of the one-year period in the notification were held to be barred by mandatory limitation and were not admissible. The appeal thus succeeded only for the timely claims filed before the incorrect authority, while the belated claims remained rejected. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259107 A SAD refund claim filed within the prescribed time was held maintainable even though it was presented before the wrong Customs Commissionerate, because timely filing was treated as sufficient and the mistaken forum was not fatal to entitlement. The rejection of the timely claim was therefore set aside. By contrast, refund claims filed after expiry of the one-year period in the notification were held to be barred by mandatory limitation and were not admissible. The appeal thus succeeded only for the timely claims filed before the incorrect authority, while the belated claims remained rejected. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259107