ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This appeal is against rejection of refund claim as time barred. The appellants had cleared on payment of duty certain quantities of their final product some time in 1998. The customer found the goods defective and hence returned the same. The appellants, upon receipt of the returned goods, gave the requisite intimation to the Department as required under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The date of receipt of the returned goods in the appellant’s factory is 23.2.1999. Later on, the goods were re-processed and cleared on payment of duty in December 1999 and January 2000. Meanwhile, the appellants filed a refund claim on 23.8.1999 in terms of Rule 173L. The original authority rejected the claim, holding that the claim was premature inasmuch as there was no section-time-payment of duty by them. The ground taken by the said authority for rejecting the refund claim, however, did not find favour with the first appellate authority. The latter authority, however, found the refund claim to be barred by limitation. It held that as the returned goods were received in the appellant’s factory on 23.2.1999, the refund claim ought to have been filed on or before 22.8.1999 as per the provisions of Section IIB of the Central Excise Act. The claim was filed on 23.8.1999 with a delay of one day. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone this delay and held the claim to be time-barred.
2. I have heard both sides and considered their submissions. As rightly pleaded by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal, the full period of six months from 23.2.99 was available to the party to make a refund claim. This period ended on 22.8.1999, a sunday, which was a holiday for the department. It was impossible for party to make a refund claim on this day. They filed the claim on the very next day. This apart, in matters of this nature, the General Clause Act, 1897 would apply. By virtue of Section 10 of this Act, the last day of the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act being a holiday, the refund claim filed under the said Section 11B on the next day would be deemed to have been filed within time. A similar view has been taken by this Tribunal in CCE Vs. Seal Narrow Tapes Pvt. Ltd. (1998 (98) ELT 476). The Chartered Account representing the appellants had also relied on the limitation Act and has, in this connection, cited the decision in the case of CCE Vs S.A.I.L. [1992 (61) ELT 732 (Tribunal)]. The reliance placed on the Limitation Act, however, cannot be accepted inasmuch as it has been held by the apex Court that the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings.
3. Having found that there is no delay in the filing of the refund claim, I hold that the refund claim is liable to be allowed. The proper officer, shall accordingly, refund the amount of duty to the assessee.
4. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and this appeal is allowed.