Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s IDS Denmed Private Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)

2015 (10) TMI 958 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Jurisdiction to grant refund claim of SAD – Notification No.102/2007-Cus - whether Assistant Commissioner of Customs House and Air Cargo Complex have concurrent Jurisdiction - revenue contended that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner alone shall sanction and refund the claim made by the assesses.

Held That:- Standing Counsel for revenue fairly submitted that the petitioner may be directed to file necessary refund claims before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and on re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted:- 30-9-2015 - R Mahadevan , J For the Appellant : Mr. B Satish Sundar For the Respondent : Dr. Devendiran , SC ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Devendiran , learned Standing Counsel who took notice for the respondents and with their consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order of the second respondent dated 06.08.2015 and to direct the respondents herein to disburse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d with the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, New Delhi and has been allotted Import Export Code No.0506043835. 3.2 During the course of its business, the petitioner caused import of 84178090 - Automatic Programmable Vaccum Porcelain Furnace MODEL Classical, 84192010 Sun 16-I, Class N Dental Autoclave and 30064000 Oranwash L140 ML Tube (Dental Cement) from its supplier in China under Bills of Entry dated 05.04.2013, 17.04.2013 and 22.4.2013. They have als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wase also taken on file by the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent, on scrutinizing the same, rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 06.08.2015. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3.3 According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, both the authorities i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Customs House and Air Cargo Complex have concurrent jurisdiction over the ports as well as the Airport under Notification No.15/2012-Cus/(NT), dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

entertain the refund claim, he ought to have pointed out the same to the petitioner by issuing deficiency memo, which has not been done. Further, having found that the refund claim of the petitioner was in order in all aspects, the 2nd respondent ought to have transferred the files to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) at Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam , Chennai . In these circumstances, it is useful to extract the relevant passage of the judgement cited above, which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Air Cargo), Port (Import) and Port (Export) at Chennai. Under Col.3, the jurisdictions of these Commissioners have been specified to be inclusive of the Port of Chennai, Port of Ennore as well as Chennai Airport etc. From the above, it is very clear that the Commissioners of Customs in Chennai and their AC/DC of Customs have concurrent jurisdiction over the ports as well as the airport. Hence, it cannot be said that the main refund application was filed before the AC/DC of customs, who did not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al and proper, even though he has passed the said order or 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." 3.4 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Commissioner of Customs have concurrent jurisdiction and hence, there is no impediment for the authority to consider the claim of the refund and on that basis prayed that the impugned order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version