TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellant filed refund claim on 10/6/2009 of Rs. 1,48,946/- towards excess paid CVD. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs CRC-I, JNCH in his finding has found on merit, the refund is admissible, however he rejected the claim on the issue limitation on the ground that the duty for which refund was sought for was paid on 10/12/2008 and claim was submitted 10/6/2009 i.e. after expiry of 06 months of payment of duty. Accordingly, held that the refund claim fails on the issue of limitation. As regard 'unjust enrichment', Dy. Commissioner held that since the refund claim filed on limitation, the issue of 'unjust enrichment' is futile exercise. Though the appellant had submitted the CA Certificate and Cenvat credit Certificate is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing case laws. [1992 (61) E.L.T. 732 (Tribunal)] CC E Vs. S.A.I.L., Rourkela Steel Plant [2002 (144) E.L.T. 649 (Tri.-Del)] CC E Vs. Rollatainers Ltd. [2003 (152) E.L.T. 375 (Tri.-Del)] LML Ltd. Vs. CC E Kanpur 3. Shri Senthil Nathan, ld Dy. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. The refund claim of the appellant rejected only on the ground that limitation, as there is delay of one day as per the findings of the lower authority. Admittedly the duty was paid on 10/12/2008 and the refund was filed on 10/6/2009. I have carefully read the provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; Section 9 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 9. Commencement and termination of time. (1) In any 18 [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word from, and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or any other period of time, to use the word to. (2) This section applies also to all [Central Acts] made after the third law day of January, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887. From the reading of both the above Acts, it is mandated that while computing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l or application and would not directly regulate the time-limit applicable for a refund claim filed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Actually, the provisions of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act would squarely apply to the present type of case. Under the said provision, it has been laid down that any act or regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of dates or any other period of time, to use the word 'from'. Sub-section (2) of the said Section 9 lays down that this section applies also to all Central Acts made after the third day of January, 1868. In the book "Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh (4th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onths from the relevant date. In view of the clear position regarding the effect of the word 'from', the proper procedure would be to exclude the relevant date and start the period of limitation of six months from the following day. The 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 c....