2008 (12) TMI 109 - AT - Customs

Refund of the duty paid twice - refund of the duty which was duly sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner has been set aside by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that Asst. Commissioner has sanctioned the amount u/s l1B of the Central Excise Act whereas the duty relates to Customs as Asst. Commissioner being in charge of units receiving imported goods he was the Asst. Commissioner both for Customs and Central Excise therefore he is competent to sanction both refund of Customs and Excise duty

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of custom duty refund, jurisdiction of Asst. Commissioner to sanction refund under Customs Act.

In this case, the appellant appealed against the denial of a custom duty refund of Rs. 64,294, paid for goods that were short received. The Asst. Commissioner had initially sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside, stating that since it was a duty of customs, the refund should not have been sanctioned under Section 11B but under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the duty was paid under the Excise head, akin to excise duty, and that the Asst. Commissioner, being in charge of units handling imported goods, was competent to sanction the refund under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the Asst. Commissioner had the authority to sanction both customs and Central Excise duty refunds, as he was responsible for units dealing with imported goods under both customs and excise. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the refund order and should have directed the Asst. Commissioner to sanction it under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the Asst. Commissioner to sanction the refund under the Customs Act, treating the application accordingly.