9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that: - When the department finds that the refund claim had been made before the incorrect authority, the proper course and the reasonable approach that should have been adopted is to forward the papers to the proper officer with due intimation to the petitioner. Unfortunately, that was not done in the instant case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions - the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), dated 24.01.2017. 3. The petitioner filed a refund claim of SAD in terms of Notification dated 14.9.2007, before the Refund Department of the Chennai IV Commissionarate. The said application was returned vide the impugned communication dated 21.4.2017, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority. When this order was put to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n came up earlier, this court directed the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue to obtain written instructions from the respondents as to, who will be the proper officer to entertain the refund claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds/Sea) has given a written communication dated 31.07.2017, stating that the Assistant /Deputy Commissioner of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, by directing the petitioner to re present the refund claim dated 30.10.2016, which was returned to the petitioner and received by them on 25.01.2017 to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs Chennai VII Air Cargo Commissionerate, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the said authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
