Arcelormittal Projects India Limited Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad has issued an order allowing the appeal of ArcelorMittal Projects India Limited against the rejection of their refund claim for imported goods. The rejection was based on the ground of time bar, claiming a delay in filing the refund within the prescribed period. The appellant argued that the computation of the limitation period should be determined as per Section 9 and 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Analysis: The appellant contended that the refund claims were filed within one year from the relevant date, taking into account the provisions of the General Clauses Act. They cited several judgments in support of their argument. The appellant pointed out that according to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the first day is excluded when calculating a series of days, and if the last day falls on a weekly holiday, the act can be done on the next working day. The appellant referred to a case where the Bombay High Court held that the computation of the limitation period follows the same date in the next year.
Conclusion: After considering the submissions from both parties and examining the relevant provisions and legal precedents, the CESTAT Ahmedabad concluded that the refund claims filed by ArcelorMittal Projects India Limited were not time-barred. The impugned order rejecting the refund claims was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. MUN-CUSTM-000-011-14-15 dated 25.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby refund of the appellant under Notification No. 102/2007- Cus dated 14.09.2007 for imported goods i.e. non-alloy HR unpickled (Steel coils), tin plate sheets, sold during September 2011 to October 2012 was rejected on the ground of time bar. The impugned order contended that in respect of the refund under bill of entry no 4409841 dated 19.08.2011 there is a delay of one day and in respect of refund under bill of entry no 4407720 dated 19 .08.2011, the delay is of 2 days. Being aggrieved by the said Order –In-Appeal the appellant filed the present appeal.
2. Shri Manish Jain, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the refund claims were filed within 1 year from the relevant date. He submits that in terms of General Clauses Act, 1897 the first day is reduced and the last date falling on weekly holiday i.e. falling Saturday – Sunday then filling the refund on Monday is within one year as per the computation of the period provided under General Clauses Act, 1897 hence, the refund is not time barred. He placed reliance on the following judgments:
