2019 (2) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Jurisdiction in which the claim is to be made - case of revenue is that the goods were imported through Tuticorin Port and cleared through Customs House, Tuticorin, the claims ought to have been filed within Customs House, Tuticorin and not before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - appellant contends that the refund claims ought to have forwarded to the proper jurisdictional authority - Held that - If the power of exercising jurisdiction of a refund claim was purely within the administrative domain of the department, we fail to understand why the department did not forward the claim to the proper jurisdiction so as to facilitate the assessee - The department could have at least issued a deficiency memo to the appellants before passing an order rejecting the refund claim. As per Regulation 2 of Customs Refund Application (Forms) Regulation 1995, the proper officer has to intimate the deficiencies of the application to the claimant within 10 days of receipt of the claim. The order of rejection for want of jurisdiction was passed after more than 10 months. The Hon ble Apex Court has held in various decisions that the procedural lapses cannot take away substantive remedy - reliance placed in the case of MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Also, in several decisions, it has been held by various courts that the prosecution of the case before the wrong forum has to be excluded for considering the limitation. The appellant has to be given a further chance to present their claims before the correct jurisdictional authority - the matter requires to be remanded to the Customs House, Tuticorin, who is directed to process the refund claims - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction for filing refund claims.
2. Procedural lapses and their impact on substantive remedies.
3. Compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
4. Violation of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing.
5. Timeliness and proper forum for refund claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction for Filing Refund Claims:

The core issue was whether the rejection of refund claims on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was proper. The appellant imported components of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) through Tuticorin Port and filed refund claims for Special Additional Duty (SAD) before the Chennai Commissionerate instead of the Tuticorin Customs House. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claims due to this jurisdictional error.

2. Procedural Lapses and Their Impact on Substantive Remedies:

The appellant argued that the claims were filed within the time prescribed by Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. and included all necessary documents. They contended that the Customs House, Chennai, should have transferred the claims to the appropriate jurisdiction or at least issued a deficiency memo. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner-1991 (55) ELT 437 (S.C.), emphasizing that procedural lapses should not negate substantive remedies.

3. Compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus:

According to Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., the importer must file a refund claim with the jurisdictional Customs officer where the goods were imported. The claims were filed in Chennai instead of Tuticorin, leading to their rejection. The Tribunal noted that the claims were filed within the prescribed time, and the procedural defect of filing before the wrong jurisdiction should not foreclose the substantive remedy of refund.

4. Violation of Natural Justice Due to Lack of Personal Hearing:

The appellant highlighted that they were not given a personal hearing before the rejection of their claims, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the adjudicating authority should have conducted a preliminary scrutiny and pointed out any deficiencies, allowing the appellant to resubmit the claims to the correct jurisdiction within the stipulated time.

5. Timeliness and Proper Forum for Refund Claims:

The Tribunal examined the timeline of the refund claims and found that all claims were filed within the time prescribed by the notification. The Tribunal also referenced the case of M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd., which held that a refund application filed within time but before the wrong authority should not be considered time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be given an opportunity to present their claims before the correct jurisdictional authority.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Customs House, Tuticorin, directing them to process the refund claims in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not deny substantive remedies and that the appellant should be given a chance to rectify the jurisdictional error. The appeal was thus allowed by way of remand to the proper jurisdictional authority.

← Previous Next →