2024 (9) TMI 471 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of Commissioner to process the refund claim - Seeking direction to transfer of the claim to the jurisdictional Commissioner, who was the Commissioner, Airport - Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD). Jriscition of Refund claim - HELD THAT - The grievance expressed is as regards the specific observation of the Tribunal to the effect that 'the Commissioners of Customs in Chennai and their A.C./D.C. of Customs have concurrent jurisdiction over the Ports as well as the Airports' - On an appreciation of the Commissionerates and charges stipulated in Clause 7 of Notification No.15/2002, the observation of the Tribunal appears incorrect. The Commissionerates of Seaport and Airport are clearly demarcated and delineated and their charge would be restricted to those matters that fall within their competence only. There can thus be no assumption of jurisdiction by officers of Commissionerate in regard to matters falling with the jurisdiction of the other Commissionerate. The first substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of the Revenue. Transfer of the refund claim - HELD THAT - It is always open to a superior authority to direct transfer of an appeal from one authority to another based on the competence of the authority to whom it is transferred to hear the matter - In the present case, since the matter related to refund to be obtained from the Airport Commissioner, the matter had rightly been directed to be transferred to the Commissionerate Airport and there ought to have been no quarrel put forth by the Revenue on this aspect - there shall be no adverse repercussions by virtue of the present order, on any matter seeking refund of SAD. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent assessee. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Customs officers over refund claim processing.
2. Legality of transferring a refund claim to a different Customs authority.

Analysis:

Jurisdiction of Customs officers over refund claim processing:
The petitioner sought a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) which was initially rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Seaport for lacking jurisdiction. The issue revolved around whether all the Commissioners mentioned in a specific notification had concurrent jurisdiction over the area, as held by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The High Court analyzed the notification detailing the hierarchy of Officers and their assignments in Tamil Nadu, emphasizing the demarcation between Commissionerates at Seaports and Airports. The Court concluded that officers cannot assume jurisdiction outside their designated areas, ruling in favor of the Revenue on this issue.

Legality of transferring a refund claim to a different Customs authority:
The second substantial question of law addressed the legality of transferring the refund claim to the jurisdictional Commissioner at the Airport, as directed by the Tribunal. The High Court opined that a superior authority can transfer matters based on the competence of the receiving authority. In this case, since the refund claim pertained to the Airport Commissioner, the transfer was deemed appropriate. The Court highlighted previous cases where similar transfers had been upheld, emphasizing the need to avoid disrupting established procedures. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the respondent assessee, ensuring no adverse impact on refund claims. The judgment disposed of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of jurisdiction and transfer of refund claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the High Court in this case.