TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly raises provisional invoices on its contractor inasmuch as approval of such invoices are obtained at a later point of time. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant had raised invoices on its contractor (M/s.Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Angul) on provisional basis for the months of January 2013, February 2013 and March 2013 and approval for the same was received in the month of July 2013. It is submitted by the Appellant that the receipt of certified copy of invoices was delayed owing to the remoteness of contractor's location i.e. Angul district in the state of Odisha. Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 mandates payment of Service Tax by 6th of the following calen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Central Excise Act, one year from the relevant date is excluding the date of payment of duty. Hence, there is no delay in filing of the refund application. He also draws our attention to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and submits that for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation, the date of cause of action or first day of a series for computing of period has to be excluded from such period. In support of his submissions he relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Prasad Chatterjee Vs. Dinanath Sharma reported in MANU/SC/0635/2000 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant reported as 1992 (61) E.L.T. 732 (Tribunal).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged its tax liability. Thus the payment made for the month of July 2013 exceeded the Service Tax liability by Rs.6,30,689/-. The said excess payment was due to non-receipt of final certified copy of invoice at the time of discharging Service Tax liability. Since Service Tax liability could not be deferred, the Appellant made payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs.42,16,666/- on provisional basis. On receipt of certified invoices, the actual Service Tax liability as ascertained was Rs.35,85,977/- It is the case of the Appellant that there was an inadvertent excess payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs.6,30,689/-. The Appellant have filed copy of the invoices and also the Chartered Accountant's certificate certifying the excess payment made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Act. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced:- "3. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. We find that the order of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the original refund claim was not hit by time bar is correct in law. In computing the time-limit the date of the event with reference to which time-limit is to be calculated is to be excluded. The Collector (Appeals) has relied upon the Tribunal decision which has been referred to above. In the said decision Section 12 of the Limitation Act has been relied upon. The said section lays down that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. Incidentally on this point he poin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a notice was required to be served within fourteen days from the commission of the offence, a notice served at 8 a.m. on January 25, was held to be valid even though the offence was committed at 7.15 a.m. on January 11." 4. It has also been observed by the learned author that the General Rule of exclusion of the first day and the inclusion of the last day is subject to a contrary intention indicated in the statute. Applying the above principle we find that in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act relating to refund claims the relevant expression is that a person claiming refund may make an application for refund ...... before expiry of six months from the relevant date. In view of the clear position regarding the effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in terms of the notification. The notification as it has been drafted requires the application to be filed within one year from the period for which the refund has been claimed. In this case, the refund application was filed for the period ending October, 2013 and in view of the General Clauses Act, this month cannot be reckoned while calculating the period of one year. It has to begin from November, 2013 and ends in October, 2014. Therefore, the refund application has been filed within time limit and rejection of refund to the extent of Rs.6,55,298/- on this account is incorrect and needs to be set aside. Even otherwise, the notification itself provides for extension of this time by the Asst. Commissinoer/Dy. Commissioner. The s....