TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assistant Commissioner's Jurisdiction Over Refund Claims Upheld in Tax Appeal Decision</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Versus LINK ENTERPRISE</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Versus LINK ENTERPRISE - 2015 (315) E.L.T. 359 (Guj.) Issues:Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to entertain refund claims.Analysis:The case involved the department challenging a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding refund claims of special additional duty. The respondent had made refund claims based on the payment of Value Added Tax by the ultimate purchaser. The Assistant Commissioner processed the claims and ordered refunds, which were challenged by the department. The Commissioner reversed the decision, leading to an appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal.One of the main grounds raised by the Revenue was the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to entertain the refund claims. The department argued that only the Director General of Foreign Trade had the necessary documents and authority to handle such applications. The department contended that the customs authority was not equipped or legally entitled to grant refund claims. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate argued that in the absence of a Notification under Section 6 of the Customs Act, the customs authority was the appropriate entity to decide on such refund applications.The Court declined to examine the jurisdiction issue in the present case due to the lack of evidence suggesting the department questioned the genuineness of the refund claims. The department did not dispute that the special additional duty paid was refundable as the purchaser had paid Value Added Tax. Moreover, the department did not challenge the authority of the Assistant Commissioner during the proceedings before the Commissioner and the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the question of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage of the proceedings but decided not to permit it in this case. The Court dismissed the Tax Appeals while keeping the question of law regarding jurisdiction open for consideration in a suitable case in the future.
TaxTMI 