The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad bench has allowed the appeal filed by ArcelorMittal Projects India Limited, a leading steel manufacturer stating that the limitation period for the refund claims of the assessee shall be calculated in accordance with Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the refund claims of assessee pertaining to imported non-alloy HR unpickled steel coils and tin plate sheets sold between September 2011 and October 2012 under Notification No.102/2007-Cus.
The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the refunds on the grounds of time limitation, citing a delay of one day and two days in filing the claims against specific bill of entries.
The appellant assessee, represented by Shri Manish Jain argued that both refund claims were filed within one year from the relevant date.
The assessee contended that according to the General Clauses Act, 1897, the first day is excluded from the computation, and if the last day falls on a weekend, the claim can be filed on the following working day.
The assessee relied on various legal precedents, including Aarti Technopacks vs. CCE, Shyam Nagpal vs. CCE, Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. CC, and others, tosupport its arguments.
The revenue, represented by Shri Tara Prakash, Deputy Commissioner reiterated the findings of the order and maintained that the claims were time barred.
The two-member bench consisting of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and C. L. Mahar (Technical Member) focused on the issue of whether the refund claims were within the one year limitation period from the date of payment.
The bench analyzed the relevant provisions regarding the commencement, termination, and computation of time contemplated under Sections 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
The bench held that the refund claims filed by the assessee were indeed within the stipulated one year period.
The bench observed that according to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the date of deposit of duty on August 26, 2011, and August 25, 2011, meant that the one-year period commenced on August 27, 2011, and August 26, 2011, respectively. Consequently, the first refund claim filed on August 27, 2012, fell well within the one year limit.
The bench also clarified that even though the one year period for the second refund claim technically ended on August 26, 2012, as it was a sunday, the filing of the claim on monday, August 27, 2012, was deemed to be within the prescribed time limit as per Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
In result, the bench set aside the order and allowed the appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
