The Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai ordered the expeditious sanctioning of refund claim filed in wrong jurisdiction.
Facts
The importer viz. M/s. ECI Telecom India Private Limited, New Delhi had filed refund claims originally before the Commissioner of Customs, Import & General, New Delhi.
Entertaining the view that the said claims pertain to Air Customs, Chennai, the same was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), New Custom House, Chennai on 16.03.2012.
Subsequently, the refund claims in question (pertaining to 10 Bills of Entry) came to be rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) vide letter of communication on the ground that the same were received after the expiry of one year and in contravention of the provisions of Notification, as amended by Notification.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter of communication dated 30.03.2012, the claimant filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority, who vide order impugned herein, has directed the respondent to re-submit the claim before the lower authority, thereby directing the adjudicating authority to process the claim without insisting on the aspect of limitation/pass a suitable order on the merits of the claim. Being aggrieved by the above, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before this forum.
Submissions
Harendra Singh Pal, Authorized Representative (Assistant Commissioner) appearing for the appellant Revenue submitted that the respondent was not represented, either in person or by counsel. However, since several adjournments had already been granted to the respondent arising out of his absence, the matter has been taken up for disposal on merits after hearing the Departmental Representative.
Departmental Representative, has submitted on behalf of Revenue that as per paragraph 2(c) of Notification No. 102/2007, a refund claim should be filed within one year from the date of payment of duty.
Decision
The single member bench of M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) said that it is not disputed by Revenue that the respondent has filed the refund claim before the Commissioner of Customs, Import & General, New Delhi within one year from the date of payment of duty. However, it is their case that the same cannot be taken as the date of filing before the actual jurisdictional Commissionerate viz. Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Air Commissionerate, Chennai. It is Revenue’s contention that filing of a refund claim in a wrong jurisdiction cannot be taken lightly and cannot be condoned. This is perhaps a very narrow view and does not fit into the role of the department as a facilitator nor does it have the express sanction of law.
The tribunal observed that rejecting the refund claim simply on the ground of delay in filing the claim before the proper authority while admitting that the appellant had filed the claim before the department on time, albeit at a wrong jurisdiction cannot be approved.
In the facts and circumstances of this issue the bench agreed with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who based on the ratio of the judgments cited by the respondents before him had accepted the appeal.
The bench ordered that since no other issue has been raised and considerable time has elapsed, the refund may be sanctioned expeditiously as per law.
Case title: Commissioner of Customs (Air) v/s M/s. ECI Telecom India Private Limited
Citation: Customs Appeal No. 41432 of 2013
