Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 2263 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (10) TMI 2263 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 286 (Mad.) - Refund Claim pursuant to 2(c) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. Jurisdiction - Impugned orders were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing - No deficiency memo issued by 2nd Respondent informing that he had no jurisdiction to entertain refund claim - Files not transferred to Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) Respondent contended that as per the notification jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner alone sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

devan , J. For the Appellant : Mr. B Satish Sundar For the Respondent : Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan ORDER The petitioner has come forward with these writ petitions challenging the orders of the second respondent dated 12.3.2015, 29.4.2015 and 18.12.2014 and to direct the respondents herein to disburse the refund amount with interest at appropriate rates. The facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1 Petitioner company is a Private Limited Company, which is in the business of manufacture, research and d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

come Tax Department. 2.2 During the course of its business, the petitioner caused import of "Clinical Chemistry Analyser with standard accessories", " Diagnositc Reagent" and 'Urine Reagent Strips and Urine Chemistry Analyser' respectively from its supplier in South Korea under Bills of Entry dated 19.04.2013 and 06.05.2013 with respect to W.P.No.28331 of 2015, Bill of Entry dated 03.01.2013 with respect to W.P.No.28332 of 2015 and Bills of Entry dated 06.07.2013, 04. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the same, the petitioner made applications dated 15.04.2014, 28.12.2013 and 04.07.2014 respectively for refund of the said amount, which were also taken on file by the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent, on scrutinizing the same, for want of jurisdiction rejected the claim of the petitioner by the impugned orders dated 12.03.2015, 29.04.2015 and 18.12.2014. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3.1 According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, both the aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rted in 2012 (284) ELT 218 (Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd.) submitted that in the event of the 2nd respondent finding that he had no jurisdiction to 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 Assi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

002 (as amended), against S.No.7 in the table annexed thereto, the jurisdiction of AC/DC of Customs have been specified in terms of the jurisdiction of Commissioners of Customs (Airport & 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/ .....

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. 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 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." 3.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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