2013 (5) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the order of the lower appellate authority transferring the refund claim to the dealing Assistant/Deputy Commissioner in the Air Cargo Complex cannot be said to be not legal and proper, even though he has passed the said order for other reasons. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the department. The stay application filed by the department also stands dispo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that it was not filed before the jurisdictional AC/DC of Customs in the Air Cargo Complex. On an appeal from the respondents, the lower appellate authority has set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and has directed transfer of the application to the concerned AC/DC of Customs in the Air Cargo Complex to decide the matter on merit. Again .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve, it is very clear that the Commissioners of Customs in Chennai and their AC/DC of Customs have concurrent jurisdiction over the ports as well as the airport. Hence, it cannot be said that the main refund application was filed before the AC/DC of Customs, who did not have jurisdiction over the Airport and Air Cargo Complex. It would, of course, have been expedient if the appellants had filed the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X