2014 (11) TMI 993 - HC - Customs

Refund of duty - whether the assessee were eligible for refund of additional duty of customs leviable u/s 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act paid at the time of clearance of goods from SEZ to DTA - Held that - Firstly there is nothing on record to suggest that the department questioned the genuineness of the refund claims of the assessee. In other words, the department does not seriously dispute that the special additional duty paid by the respondent was refundable since the purchaser had paid Value Added Tax to the department. Additionally, as an appellant before the Commissioner and respondent before the Tribunal, the department never questioned the jurisdiction and the authority of the Assistant Commissioner to entertain the refund claims. At this stage, particularly, in the facts of this case, we do not permit to do so - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to entertain refund claims.

Analysis:
The case involved the department challenging a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding refund claims of special additional duty. The respondent had made refund claims based on the payment of Value Added Tax by the ultimate purchaser. The Assistant Commissioner processed the claims and ordered refunds, which were challenged by the department. The Commissioner reversed the decision, leading to an appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal.

One of the main grounds raised by the Revenue was the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to entertain the refund claims. The department argued that only the Director General of Foreign Trade had the necessary documents and authority to handle such applications. The department contended that the customs authority was not equipped or legally entitled to grant refund claims. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate argued that in the absence of a Notification under Section 6 of the Customs Act, the customs authority was the appropriate entity to decide on such refund applications.

The Court declined to examine the jurisdiction issue in the present case due to the lack of evidence suggesting the department questioned the genuineness of the refund claims. The department did not dispute that the special additional duty paid was refundable as the purchaser had paid Value Added Tax. Moreover, the department did not challenge the authority of the Assistant Commissioner during the proceedings before the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the question of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage of the proceedings but decided not to permit it in this case. The Court dismissed the Tax Appeals while keeping the question of law regarding jurisdiction open for consideration in a suitable case in the future.