TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, returned by the Asst. Commissioner, before the appropriate jurisdictional customs authorities. 2. The fact in nutshell is that appellant is a SEZ unit manufacturing bulk drugs in which methylene chloride is being used. It imported two consignments through Mumbai port, filed appropriate bills of entry dated 23.10.2013 and 12.12.2013 for warehousing, transit warehoused goods to their SEZ unit situated in Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, rewarehoused the same, filed bill of entry again in their SEZ unit for home consumption before the specified officer who assessed the same, noted shortage of goods imported and sent the shipping bill with such noting to the port of importation i.e. Mumbai. On the basis of rewarehousing certificate issued, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of refund claim before the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai met the same fate of rejection. In his order, the AC referred to Rule 2(1) of the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulation 1995 and gave his finding that refund has to be sought from the authority where the duty of customs was paid. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai who also gave his finding that Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai did not have administrative control over SEZ, Vishakhapatnam district for which he disposed of the appeal directing the appellant for resubmission of refund claim before the appropriate jurisdictional customs authority. Appeal before this Tribunal is against the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016, vide which date amendment was introduced to SEZ Rules 2006 incorporating sub-rule (5) to Rule 47, no provision for refund was available for SEZ units and Board vide circular no. 11/2017 dated 31.03.2017 had clarified that such circular only has prospective effect and therefore no irregularity can be found from the order of the first adjudicating authority or the appellate authority since Rule 2 of the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulation 1995 clearly prescribes that an application for refund shall be made to the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs or Dy. Commissioner having jurisdiction over the customs port and in the instant case since goods were released at Vishakhapatnam port, Mumbai Customs port has no jurisdiction to entertain....