2022 (8) TMI 166 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - excess payment of service tax - rejection of refund claim as barred by limitation of time on the ground of delay in filing such application by one day beyond the period of one year from the relevant date - Appellant s claim is that for the purpose of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, one year from the relevant date is excluding the date of payment of duty and hence it is their submission that there is no delay in filing of the refund application - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TARUN PRASAD CHATTERJEE VERSUS DINANATH SHARMA 2000 (10) TMI 930 - SUPREME COURT has held that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives statutory recognition to the well-established principle applicable to the construction of statutes that ordinarily in computing the period of time preserved, the rule observed is to exclude the first and include the last day. Further the Tribunal in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS S. AIL, ROURKELA STEEL PLANT 1991 (9) TMI 212 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA have decided that the provisions of Limitation Act and the General Clauses Act are to be applied for interpreting certain general situations like the period of limitation prescribed under any Act and it was held that t he point raised in the appeal before us that the date of computation can never be by excluding 29-2-1988, has got no legal basis. Similarly, nothing much turns on the argument that since the Act specifically provides the relevant date which in the present case is the date of payment of duty, i.e. date of debit in the P.L.A., the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable. The fact that the relevant date has been defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act does not affect a general principle as to how to compute the period of limitation. The provisions of the Limitation Act and the General Clauses Act are to be applied for interpreting certain general situations like the period of limitation prescribed under any act. Further the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta high Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA (COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, EXPORT) VERSUS BENGAL RUBY MICA SUPPLY CO. 2006 (8) TMI 686 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT as relied upon by the Respondents was a case of incorrect assessment by the Customs Authorities and the jurisdiction of the department to make assessment was challenged wherein the High Court held that the department was in rights to do the assessment and mere mistake in arriving at the value of the goods, cannot make the entire assessment invalid and thus the consequential refund was also disallowed. The period of limitation should be calculated as per the General Clauses Act - the refund application has been filed within time and rejection of refund is incorrect and needs to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing refund application beyond the limitation period.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., engaged in engineering, construction, manufacturing, and financial services, raising provisional invoices for Works Contract Services. The approval for these invoices was received after a delay due to the contractor's remote location. The Appellant discharged its tax liability on a provisional basis, exceeding the actual liability due to non-receipt of final certified invoices. A refund claim was filed, but rejected as time-barred by the Adjudicating authority and Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). The main issue was the calculation of the limitation period for filing the refund application.

The Appellant argued that the refund application was filed within one year from the relevant date, excluding the date of payment of duty. Referring to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, it was contended that the first day should be excluded while calculating the period of limitation. Citing legal precedents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, the Appellant asserted that the refund claim was not time-barred.

On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Department contended that the refund claim was indeed barred by limitation, urging the dismissal of the Appeal for lacking merit. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal analyzed the case in detail, considering the provisions of the General Clauses Act and relevant legal principles.

The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including the decision in the case of Fact Set System India Pvt.Ltd. v. CCE & ST, Hyderabad-IV, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in UOI Vs. Bengal Ruby Mica Supply Co., to support its analysis. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the refund application was filed within the time limit as per the General Clauses Act. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the Appeal filed by the Appellant with consequential relief, in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the calculation of the limitation period for filing the refund application, emphasizing the application of the General Clauses Act and legal precedents to determine the timeliness of the claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions and established legal principles in resolving the issue of delay in filing the refund application.