2016 (1) TMI 693 - HC - Customs

Refund of SAD - jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim - period of limitation - Notification No.102/2007 as amended - the second respondent, for want of jurisdiction and on the ground of limitation, partly rejected the claim of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 07.05.2015 - Held that - In the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. 2013 (5) TMI 436 - CESTAT, CHENNAI it was observed that, it cannot be said that the main refund application was filed before the AC/DC of Customs, who did not have jurisdiction over the Airport and Air Cargo Complex Second respondent is directed to send the original refund application submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo). The petitioner is also permitted to submit the copy of the refund application to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo) along with the copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same - matter remanded back - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for refund disbursement with interest.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of chemicals import, challenged the rejection of their refund claim by the second respondent. The petitioner imported specific chemicals and materials and claimed a refund under relevant notifications. The second respondent rejected the claim citing jurisdictional issues and limitation. The petitioner contended that both Customs authorities had concurrent jurisdiction, and a deficiency memo should have been issued if jurisdiction was lacking. The petitioner also argued that the Commissioner of Customs had concurrent jurisdiction, so the refund claim should have been considered. The standing counsel for the respondents stated that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was responsible for sanctioning refunds. The court referred to a previous judgment establishing the jurisdiction of Customs authorities and directed the second respondent to forward the refund application to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration. The petitioner was given an opportunity to resubmit the application, and the Assistant Commissioner was instructed to decide on the claim within four weeks. Failure to comply would allow the respondents to take appropriate action. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.