Customs officer jurisdiction over Light Dues refunds supports appellate remedy under the Customs Act.

Where Light Dues are collected through Customs machinery under the Light House Act, 1927, the Customs officer assigned the relevant functions is the proper officer to process refund claims as well. The Act's refund mechanism permits recovery of excess payment if the claim is made within six months of each payment. Because the refund rejection arose from an order made by a Customs officer within that statutory framework, an appeal lay under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The jurisdictional objection to the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore could not be sustained, and the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs officer was the proper officer competent to process refund of excess Light Dues paid under the Light House Act, 1927, and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against rejection of the refund claim.

Analysis: The scheme of the Light House Act, 1927 treats the officer of Customs assigned the relevant functions as the proper officer for collection and related matters. Refund of excess Light Dues is incidental to that statutory collection machinery, and Section 19 of the Light House Act, 1927 permits refund where the claim is made within six months from each payment. Since the refund claim arose out of an order passed by a Customs officer under the statutory framework, the appellate remedy under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was available. The jurisdictional objection, therefore, could not stand.

Conclusion: The Customs officer was competent to consider the refund claim, the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction, and the order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Light Dues are collected and processed through Customs machinery under the Light House Act, 1927, the Customs officer is the proper officer for refund also, and an appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 lies against the decision.

---