2017 (8) TMI 983 - HC - Customs

Refund of SAD - jurisdiction - case of Revenue is that when the Refunds department does not have jurisdiction over the subject refund claim, it does not have any authority/locus standi to take up such a claim for processing - Held that - When the department finds that the refund claim had been made before the incorrect authority, the proper course and the reasonable approach that should have been adopted is to forward the papers to the proper officer with due intimation to the petitioner. Unfortunately, that was not done in the instant case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions - the impugned order is set aside, by directing the petitioner to re present the refund claim dated 30.10.2016, which was returned to the petitioner and received by them on 25.01.2017 to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs Chennai VII Air Cargo Commissionerate - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting appeal petition against Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) order, proper officer to entertain refund claim, failure to forward papers to proper officer, direction to re-present refund claim.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which rejected the appeal petition against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Refunds department did not have jurisdiction over the subject refund claim and therefore, the claim was returned to the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner (Refund) had only returned the claim, leading to the rejection of the appeal petition. The High Court directed the Revenue to identify the proper officer to entertain the refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds/Sea) identified the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VII Air Cargo Commissionerate as the proper officer. The Court acknowledged the need for the matter to be dealt with by the proper officer and decided to issue appropriate directions in this regard.

The Court noted that the department should have forwarded the papers to the proper officer with intimation to the petitioner when it found that the refund claim was made before the incorrect authority. Since this was not done in the present case, the Court decided to issue necessary directions. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The petitioner was directed to re-present the refund claim to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VII Air Cargo Commissionerate within a week from receiving the order copy. The authority was instructed to process the refund claim considering the date of application as 15.02.2016 for all purposes. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the concerned authority, and no costs were imposed. As a result, the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.