9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the Superintendent under whose jurisdiction, the recipient of the goods is situated. Later, the jurisdictional authorities of the recipient decided that the goods cleared by the appellant are not entitled for the benefit of exemption notification. Consequently, they initiated proceedings against the recipient of the impugned goods and recovered appropriate duty along with interest. Penalty was also imposed. It is seen that the recipient 100% EOU paid the duty, interest and penalty demanded by the department, but, recovered the sums from the appellant by way of deduction of the sum from the amount owed by them to the appellant. The appellants were highly aggrieved over the issue as they had to bear the incidence of duty and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal against the department in the matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) stated I find from Section 11B of the Customs Act (sic) that refund claim can be filed either by person who has paid the duty or by a person who has purchased the goods, and thus had borne the incidence of duty. In this case, I find that the appellants have neither paid the duty nor are they the purchaser of the final goods. Therefore, I am of the view that in terms of Section 11B of the Customs Act, the appellants have no locus standi to file the refund claim. 3.2 Both the lower authorities had decided the issue questioning the locus standi of the appellants. They had not examined the entire issue on the basis of the facts on record. The lower authority has stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals. The duty had been paid on 16-8-2001. When the appellant learnt that duty had been paid, they advised M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. for getting an appealable order from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs so that they can take up the matter for settlement. Further, it is seen that M/s. Sasken could not cooperate with the appellant in order to have better relations with the Customs. While communicating that duty had been paid, M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., in their letter dated 21-8-2001, informed the appellant that the entire amount of duty, interest and penalties if any, will be deducted from SPCL bills. Further, they had also enclosed a certificate to the effect that the amount of duty along with interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such reclassification which could not be done in the civil suit. In other words, it was held that the appellants suffer adverse civil consequences and, have therefore, the locus to challenge the reclassification. As far as the issue of locus standi is concerned, the facts of this case are similar to M/s. IDL Chemicals Ltd case. The locus standi question has to be decided on the facts of each case. Just because the appellant is not a licencee in the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, it cannot be held that he has no locus standi. Further, Section 11B was amended in 1991 providing for filing refund claim even by a purchaser. It is evident that a purchaser does not pay Central Excise duty directly to the Department. Yet, when he has bor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
