2015 (2) TMI 550 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - delay of one day - Held that - it is mandated that while computing the period of limitation, first day from which such period to be reckoned shall be excluded. In the present case, the first date is 10/12/2008 and last date is 10/6/2009. If in accordance with the above statutory provisions the first date i.e. 10/12/2008 is excluded, then the period of six months shall be reckoned from 11/12/2008, accordingly six months will complete on 10/6/2009. The appellant has filed the refund claim on 10/6/2009, this clearly shows that the appellant has filed their refund claim within stipulated time of six months. - it is crystal clear that in the present case, the date of deposit i.e. 10/12/2008 shall be excluded and six months shall be reckoned from 11/12/2008 and therefore the appellant's refund claim was filed on last day of completing the six months period i.e. 10/6/2009, accordingly the refund claim is not time bar - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Refund claim rejection based on limitation period calculation
- Interpretation of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963
- Application of legal principles in computing time limits for refund claims

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim rejection based on limitation period calculation
The appellant filed a refund claim for excess paid CVD, which was rejected by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs CRC-I, JNCH, citing limitation grounds. The duty was paid on 10/12/2008, and the refund claim was submitted on 10/6/2009, one day after the six-month period from the payment date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection due to the delay of one day beyond the limitation period.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963
The appellant argued that the first day should be excluded when calculating the limitation period, as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. By excluding the first day (10/12/2008), the six-month period would end on 10/6/2009, aligning with the date of the refund claim submission. The appellant relied on legal precedents and statutory provisions to support this interpretation.

Issue 3: Application of legal principles in computing time limits for refund claims
The Tribunal analyzed previous judgments, such as [1992 (61) E.L.T. 732 (Tribunal)] CC E Vs. S.A.I.L., Rourkela Steel Plant and [2002 (144) E.L.T. 649 (Tri.-Del)] CC E Vs. Rollatainers Ltd., which emphasized excluding the first day when calculating time limits for refund claims. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refund claim was not time-barred, as it was filed within the stipulated six-month period when the first day was excluded. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and directed the refund to be granted, subject to verification of 'unjust enrichment', within one month from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the exclusion of the first day in computing the limitation period for the refund claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and legal principles in determining time limits for refund claims, ultimately ensuring a fair and just outcome for the appellant.