2016 (10) TMI 141 - AT - Customs

Refund - proper officer - Designation of Authority before whom refund application can be filed - absence of the definition of jurisdictional customs officer and section 27 having used the term Assistant Commissioner /Deputy Commissioner of Customs to entertain the refund application - Held that - in absence of proper jurisdiction being notified and proper clarification to the assessee, the authority should not have caused confusion to him for consideration of the refund application. The decision in the case of M/s Medsource Ozone Biomedicals Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs 2015 (10) TMI 2263 - MADRAS HIGH COURT relied upon. Appellant entitled to be dealt due process of law before the authority who shall dispose their application in accordance with law, applying section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the notifications above as well as the decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Madras within the time stipulated - matter remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Confusion regarding the filing of a refund application before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) and the jurisdictional customs officer.

Analysis:
1. The confusion arose when the appellant filed a refund application just on the day of limitation expiration before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, DEPB Cell. The Revenue argued that the application should have been filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) a day before the limitation expiration.

2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) opined that the refund application should have been filed before the jurisdictional customs officer. Notably, the Customs Act, 1962, lacks a specific definition of the term "Customs officer," using "officer of Customs" instead in Section 3, encompassing officers of various designations.

3. The Revenue's contention that the refund application should have been submitted before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) necessitated designating the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) as the "customs officer," as per Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007, amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus. dated 1.8.2008. The absence of a clear definition of the jurisdictional customs officer led to confusion, following precedents set by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in related cases.

4. The appellant is entitled to due process before the authority, which must dispose of the application in compliance with the Customs Act, 1962, relevant notifications, and the decisions of the High Court of Madras within the specified timeline, as per the established precedents.

5. Consequently, the appeal is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration based on the outlined reasons, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to legal procedures in handling refund applications.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)