2014 (9) TMI 61 - AT - Customs

Entitlement of refund claim - Jurisdiction - whether the application filed well within time is required to be considered for the purposes of the refund, though filed before a wrong officer or as to whether the subsequent refund application filed on 8.6.2012 has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation - Held that - Admittedly, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division is the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of the appellant and by treating the same as proper officer, the appellant had filed the application before him. If the said Deputy Commissioner was not competent to pass the refund claim, he should not have either accepted the said letter or should have returned the same to the assessee for filing it before the proper officer. Instead of the same, refund claim was kept by the Deputy Commissioner for a period of above three months and was returned only thereafter. For an assessee, it is not possible to find out as to who is the proper officer in the Revenue to deal with the refunds filed by them. Their jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is also the proper officer for the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on the point of time bar.
2. Consideration of the initial application filed within time versus subsequent application filed before the proper officer.
3. Interpretation of proper officer for refund applications.
4. Application of the principle from the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a dispute regarding the rejection of a refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant had initially filed a refund application on 9.1.2012, within the stipulated time frame. However, the application was returned by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-IV, Ghaziabad, directing the appellant to file it at ICD, Loni. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim with the Deputy Commissioner (Customs), ICD, Loni on 8.6.2012, which was beyond the one-year period from the date of the Commissioner (Appeals) order on 30.5.2011.

The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing the delay in filing, but the Tribunal analyzed the situation. The Tribunal considered whether the initial application filed within time should be deemed proper for the limitation period, even though it was filed before the wrong officer. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner should be considered the proper officer for the appellant. It was noted that the Deputy Commissioner, Ghaziabad, could have forwarded the application to the correct officer instead of keeping it for over three months and then returning it.

The judgment also referenced a decision in the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd., which held that a refund filed with the wrong authority should be treated as filed on the first date. This principle was upheld by the High Court of Gujarat. Based on these considerations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the initial application filed within the prescribed time frame as valid, even if filed before the wrong officer, to ensure fairness and adherence to legal principles in refund claims.