2024 (5) TMI 206 - AT - Central Excise

Territorial jurisdiction to Grant Refund - Authorities at Noida or the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad, had the jurisdiction to grant refund of the duty paid - Refund of excess duty in cash - price variation clause - HELD THAT - The present litigation attained finality with the order of this Tribunal being Final Order No.A/70802/2016-EX DB dated 10.06.2016 2016 (11) TMI 1203 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD . Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the Commissioner, GST Noida before this Tribunal against the Order-In-Original No.R-373/D-III/GZB/2016-17 dated 19.01.2017 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal in COMMR., CENTRAL TAX (CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX) , NOIDA VERSUS M/S. TTL LTD. 2019 (7) TMI 2018 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD . Thus, cash refund of the entire amount already paid to the Appellant has attained finality as no further appeal before any of the superior courts has been filed by the Revenue. The factory of M/s TTI Ltd. was located in Ghaziabad. Hence the territorial jurisdiction over the factory was of the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad Division and not the Assistant Commissioner, Noida. Clearances of electric meters took place in Ghaziabad Division and the Central Excise duty was also paid in that Division. Hence, refund of the excess duty paid in Ghaziabad Division was to be sanctioned by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad. Initially refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad - While jurisdiction of the Commissioners is specified by the Government / Board by issue of a notification., no such notification is issued in case of the Assistant Commissioners of the Division, whose jurisdiction is determined with respect to the location of the factory. M/s TTL Ltd., Ghaziabad surrendered their Registration Certificate to the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad on 09.03.2009 on merger with M/s QRG Enterprises Ltd. Order-in-Original dated 19.01.2017 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad after surrender of the certificate. The refund was rightly sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Commissioner, Ghaziabad who was having jurisdiction over the factory premises located in Ghaziabad at the appropriate time in which disputed duty was paid which was to be refunded. The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of refund sanctioning authority and the territorial jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners.

Jurisdiction of refund sanctioning authority:
The case involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the refund sanctioning authority. The Appellant's factory was located in Ghaziabad Division, and the Assistant Commissioner there had initially rejected the refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) at Noida ordered cash refund, which was later sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner at Ghaziabad. However, the Revenue contended that the refund should have been sanctioned by the CGST authorities at Noida. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the cash refund's finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) at Meerut allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the cash refund should have been sanctioned by the authorities at Noida. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Commissioner at Ghaziabad had the jurisdiction to grant the refund. The Tribunal held that the refund was rightly sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Commissioner at Ghaziabad, who had jurisdiction over the factory premises where the disputed duty was paid.

Territorial jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners:
The Tribunal emphasized that the factory of M/s TTL Ltd. was located in Ghaziabad, establishing the territorial jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad Division. The clearance of electric meters and payment of Central Excise duty occurred in Ghaziabad Division. The Tribunal noted that the CGST authorities at Noida did not have territorial jurisdiction over the factories in Ghaziabad Division. The Order-in-Appeal endorsed to Noida authorities was deemed a mistake, as it should have been endorsed to the authority who passed the impugned order. The Tribunal highlighted that the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners is determined based on the location of the factory. The surrender of the Registration Certificate by M/s TTL Ltd. to the Assistant Commissioner at Ghaziabad further supported the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad authority. The Tribunal concluded that the refund was rightly sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad, given the location of the factory and payment of duty in that Division.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, upholding the Order-In-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad. The appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed, emphasizing the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad over the refund sanctioning process.