2017 (9) TMI 254 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - denial on the ground that the claim has exceeded the time limit allowed under N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dt. 14.09.2007 - Held that - There is also no dispute that when the claim was filed in Sea Customs it was not filed within time - matter remanded back to the concerned original authority (refund sanctioning authority) in Air Cargo Complex to consider the claim of the appellant as if the same had been filed within time - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional error in filing refund claim.
2. Consideration of claim filed with the wrong authority.
3. Rejection of claim based on time limit.

Jurisdictional Error in Filing Refund Claim:
The appellant filed a claim for refund of SAD with the Refunds Section in Chennai Sea Customs instead of the Air Cargo Complex, despite the goods being cleared through Chennai Air Customs. The original authority rejected the claim, stating that it exceeded the time limit allowed under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The issue raised was the jurisdictional error in filing the claim with the wrong authority.

Consideration of Claim Filed with the Wrong Authority:
During the hearing, the appellant's advocate requested early disposal of the appeal, emphasizing that both the Air Cargo Complex and Sea Customs Commissionerate in Chennai have concurrent jurisdiction. The appellant had been issued a defect memo by Sea Customs Commissionerate calling for additional documents. It was argued that since the claim was always within the Customs Department, it should have been considered, especially since Sea Customs transferred the claim to Air Cargo Complex. The respondent contended that the appellant's error in filing with the wrong authority precluded seeking redressal.

Rejection of Claim Based on Time Limit:
The Tribunal noted that although the appellant filed the claim with Sea Customs instead of Air Cargo Complex, the Sea Customs Commissionerate processed the claim without pointing out the jurisdictional discrepancy. Had the appellant been informed earlier, they could have rectified the filing. The Tribunal found that the claim was always within the Customs Department and should be considered as filed within time. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded to the refund sanctioning authority in Air Cargo Complex for reconsideration, ensuring the appellant is given a fair opportunity to support their claim. The appeal was allowed by remand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the jurisdictional error in filing the refund claim, the consideration of the claim filed with the wrong authority, and the rejection of the claim based on the time limit. By remanding the matter for reconsideration, the Tribunal ensured that the appellant's claim would be reviewed as if filed within the stipulated time, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the appellant's right to present their case effectively.