9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter back to the original authority for de novo consideration as if the claims have been filed within time limit before the jurisdictional Sea Customs - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/193/2009, C/279/2009 C/280/2009 C/281/2009 C/282/2009 C/40035/2014 C/40036/2014 C/40037/2014 C/40038/2014 C/40039/2014 C/40040/2014 C/40041/2014 C/40042/2014 C/40043/2014 C/41064/2013 - Final Order No.41888-41902 / 2017 - Dated:- 26-7-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Appellant Shri C. Saravanan, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench These 15 appeals filed by the department since relating to the same issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th direction to lower authority to verify all the documents to be produced by Nokia and pass fresh orders. Aggrieved by the said order, department has filed five different appeals in C/193/2009 to C/282/2009. 3. In denovo proceedings, refund claims covered by appeals listed at Sl.No. 1-5 as above were again taken up for processing and were rejected by original authority. Aggrieved by those orders, Nokia filed five separate appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) which culminated in impugned Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 1370-1375/2013 dt. 30.09.2013, which have now been appealed before this forum by Revenue as at Sl.Nos.9, 11, 12, 13, 14. Other appeals at Sl.Nos.6,7,8,10 15 given in the table relate to refund applications filed before jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of respondent, ld. Advocate Shri C. Saravanan submits that the filing of the refund claims in the Sea Customs Commissionerate instead of Air Customs Commissionerate was not deliberate or intentional but was only inadvertence; that in any case, the claims have been filed to the customs authorities in the same city and Sea Customs have also transferred the files to the Asst. Commissioner (Airport Customs) for considering the claims. The ld. Advocate further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) is just and fair in holding that actual filing of refund claims should be the criteria for computation of time limit notwithstanding the fact that they were not filed in the correct jurisdiction. Ld. Advocate submits that date of filing refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms instead of at Air Cargo Complex. Nonetheless, instead of issuing deficiency memo pointing out the jurisdictional discrepancy, Sea Customs Commissionerate started processing the claim and in fact issued a memo seeking further documents. In case, had the appellant been informed earlier about wrong filing of the claim, he could have very well withdrawn the claim and filed it with Air Cargo Complex. On the other hand, Sea Customs Commissionerate, in fact, transferred the claim to Air Cargo Complex. This being so, it is to be considered that the claim was all along with the Customs Department and the date of filing the claim will have to be reckoned as that of when the claim was filed in Sea Customs. There is also no dispute that when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
