https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331908 A refund notification originally imposed no filing deadline, but its amendment introduced a one-year limit for claiming refund of additional customs duty. Refund claims filed after the amendment came into force were governed by the amended limitation period, and claims filed beyond that period were not maintainable. On the stated facts, the claimant admitted filing after expiry of the prescribed time, so the refund was correctly rejected as time-barred and the appellate order was upheld. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331908 A refund notification originally imposed no filing deadline, but its amendment introduced a one-year limit for claiming refund of additional customs duty. Refund claims filed after the amendment came into force were governed by the amended limitation period, and claims filed beyond that period were not maintainable. On the stated facts, the claimant admitted filing after expiry of the prescribed time, so the refund was correctly rejected as time-barred and the appellate order was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331908