Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 336 - AT - CustomsSEZ Unit - Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), NCH, Mumbai - rejection of refund claim - duty paid under protest - refund claim returned on the ground that differential duty was paid vide challan raised at Vishakhapatnam and instructed the appellant to file refund claim before the appropriate authority of SEZ, Chippada and not in the NCH, Mumbai. Held that:- The Board circular dated 03.02.1996 is applicable to the appellant since evaporation and other natural causes might have caused such loss in transit. Therefore it has nothing to do with SEZ unit. Further, the goods were imported to Mumbai port and warehoused there for which Mumbai customs port as defined in Rule 2 of Regulation 1995 should be considered as the port of import. Any subsequent transit of goods are of inland transit for which further submission of bill of entry at Vishakhapatnam was uncalled for - This being the factual position, the finding of Asst. Commissioner Import Mumbai to refuse refund claim on grounds of jurisdiction holding that the Mumbai customs have no authority is erroneous and such finding should not have found support of the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. More importantly the amended Rule 47(5) brought by the department of commerce vide Notification dated 05.08.2016 has not excluded the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs in respect of refund case - in the instant case, there is no denial of the fact that the Asst. Commissioner Customs-Bond, Mumbai is appropriate authority since he has got jurisdiction over customs port i.e. Mumbai where imports have taken place. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs- bond Mumbai has the jurisdiction to decide the refund application - appeal allowed - the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to dispose of the refund application of the appellant already filed before it.
|