Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 436 - AT - CustomsRefund claims rejected by original authority reason as the same is not filed before the jurisdictional AC/DC of Customs in the Air Cargo Complex - lower appellate authority has set aside the impugned Order-in-Original Held that - However, 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 disposed of.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal by the department. 2. Jurisdictional aspect of filing refund claims before the Assistant Commissioner in Chennai Customs House for imports in Air Cargo, Chennai. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the department after a delay of one day. The delay was condoned as there was no opposition from the respondents, and the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was allowed. 2. The case involved the jurisdictional issue of filing refund claims before the Assistant Commissioner stationed in Chennai Customs House for imports in Air Cargo, Chennai. The original authority rejected the claim on the grounds that it was not filed before the jurisdictional AC/DC of Customs in the Air Cargo Complex. The lower appellate authority set aside the Order-in-Original and directed the transfer of the application to the concerned AC/DC of Customs in the Air Cargo Complex. The department appealed this decision before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal analyzed Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Notification No. 15/2002-Customs (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002, which specified the jurisdiction of AC/DC of Customs in Chennai. It was found that the Commissioners of Customs in Chennai and their AC/DC of Customs had concurrent jurisdiction over the ports as well as the airport. Although it would have been preferable for the refund claim to be filed directly with the DC/AC at the Air Cargo, the lower appellate authority's decision to transfer the claim to the dealing Assistant/Deputy Commissioner in the Air Cargo Complex was deemed legal and proper. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the department's appeal was dismissed. The stay application filed by the department was also disposed of. This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional aspects of filing refund claims in customs cases and emphasizes the concurrent jurisdiction of AC/DC of Customs in Chennai over ports and airports. It highlights the importance of adhering to jurisdictional requirements while also recognizing the validity of decisions made for practical reasons, even if not in line with standard procedures.
|