2005 (10) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal upholds Commissioner's order on refund claim and jurisdiction; Section 27(1)(ii)(b) requirements satisfied.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order in a departmental appeal against OIA No. 9/04-Cus., concerning the time bar for filing a refund ... Refund claim - time-bar - limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - jurisdiction for filing refund claim - reliance on departmental clarification and Tribunal precedentRefund claim - time-bar - limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - jurisdiction for filing refund claim - reliance on departmental clarification and Tribunal precedent - Whether the refund claim filed by the respondent was barred by limitation and thus correctly rejected by the Original Authority or was maintainable when initially presented to Chennai Custom House on the basis of a departmental clarification and Tribunal decisions. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted that duty was paid on 22-4-98 and the respondent submitted the refund claim to Chennai Custom House on 11-8-98 relying on a clarification issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and on earlier Tribunal decisions on identical issues. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that submission to Chennai satisfied the requirement of Section 27(1)(ii)(b) and observed that the Board circulars relied upon did not determine the specific question of which Customs House was the proper forum where jurisdiction had not been defined. The Tribunal agreed that the decision in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. was distinguishable and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly examined the facts and law, concluding that the claim was not hit by time bar in the circumstances. In view of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings and the factual matrix of reliance on the departmental clarification and Tribunal precedents, there was no infirmity in the appellate order allowing the refund.The appeal by the revenue is rejected and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order allowing the refund claim is upheld.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirms the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that the refund claim, initially presented to Chennai Custom House pursuant to a departmental clarification and prior Tribunal rulings, was not barred by limitation; the revenue's appeal is dismissed. Issues:Departmental appeal against OIA No. 9/04-Cus., time bar for filing refund claim, jurisdiction for filing refund claim, satisfaction of Section 27(1)(ii)(b) requirements.Analysis:The departmental appeal was filed against OIA No. 9/04-Cus. passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Visakhapatnam. The case involved the payment of customs duty on ship stores upon conversion of a vessel from foreign to coastal run. The respondents filed a refund claim with Chennai Custom House, which was later returned with a direction to file the claim with Custom House Kakinada. The Original Authority issued a show cause notice, deciding against the respondents on grounds of time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal after detailed examination, leading to the revenue's grievance over the impugned order.The revenue raised several grounds of appeal, including the distinction of case laws relied on by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the time limit for filing the refund claim as per Circular 58/97. The revenue argued that the claim was time-barred as it was filed with Kakinada Custom House after the expiration of the prescribed time limit. Additionally, the revenue contended that both the Appellate Tribunal and Customs Authorities are bound by the statutory period of limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, citing the case of Miles India Ltd.During the hearing, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the department's inept handling of the issue and emphasized that the refund claim was filed with Chennai Custom House based on a clarification issued by the range officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the requirements of Section 27(1)(ii)(b) were satisfied, and the public notices did not address the key question of jurisdiction for filing the refund claim. The decision in the case of Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi was deemed inapplicable and distinguishable. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the refund claim was not time-barred.After considering the arguments from both sides, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that there was no infirmity in the decision. The appeal of the revenue was deemed devoid of merit, leading to its rejection. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.