2007 (1) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Shri B.K. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. Heard both sides and perused record. 2. The appellant claimed refund of light house charges amounting to about Rs. 13 lakhs, paid during the period August to October 2002, in regard to coastal run vessels. The claim was filed on 4-2-2003 before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kakinada. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the belated nature of the refund claim, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Customs Authorities were not legally competent to decide the refund application. It is being pointed out that under Section 15, Light House Act 1927 disputes about whether light house dues are payable are to be heard and determined by a Presidency Magistrate or the Magistrate of First Cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is clear that for all these purposes the Act recognizes Customs Collector as the proper officer. Section 19 which refers to refund of excess payment does not specifically stipulates proper officer. However, since refund is only incidental to collection and recovery, it is to be held that proper officer for refund of excess payment under the Act would also be Custom Collector. A contrary view w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X