2017 (12) TMI 945 - AT - Central Excise

Commissioner rules in favor of refund, emphasizes jurisdictional competence and proper procedures.

The Commissioner (A) upheld the impugned order allowing a refund of Rs. 30,00,000, directing the original authority to re-examine the rejection of Rs. ... Jurisdiction - Refund claim - case of Revenue is that it is only the competent Asst. Commissioner who can sanction the refund claim before the Commissionerate Bangalore-I whereas the show cause notice was issued by Bangalore-I, II and III Commissionerate - Held that: - it was the duty of the original authority to send the refund claim to the concerned Commissionerate who is competent to sanction the refund - there is no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is up held by dismissing the Revenue appeal - decided against Revenue. Issues:Appeal against the order allowing refund of Rs. 30,00,000. Original authority rejected refund of Rs. 20,00,000. Jurisdictional issue regarding sanctioning refund. Appeal filed by Revenue against remand order by Commissioner (A) directing re-examination of refund rejection.Analysis:The appeal filed by the Revenue was against the impugned order allowing the refund of Rs. 30,00,000, where the Commissioner (A) had directed the original authority to re-examine the rejection of Rs. 20,00,000 and pass a speaking order. The facts of the case revolved around the Respondent seeking a refund of the total amount of Rs. 30,00,000 after the demand was dropped by the Commissioner in denovo proceedings. The original authority rejected the refund of Rs. 20,00,000, stating it was pre-deposit under a different Commissionerate and lacked jurisdiction for sanctioning the claim. The Commissioner (A) allowed the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 but remanded the case back to the original authority for re-examination of the Rs. 20,00,000 refund. The Revenue contended that the impugned order was unsustainable as it did not consider material facts, arguing that only the competent Asst. Commissioner could sanction the refund claim within the Bangalore-I Commissionerate's jurisdiction. The Commissioner (A) observed that the original authority should have sent the refund claim to the competent Commissionerate for sanctioning the refund. The Commissioner (A) directed the original authority to re-examine the issue and pass a speaking order following the principles of natural justice.The Commissioner (A) found no infirmity in the impugned order, upholding it and dismissing the Revenue appeal. The Commissioner (A) directed the original authority to send the refund of the assessee to the appropriate competent authority for disposal in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of jurisdictional competence in sanctioning refunds and the need for proper procedures to be followed. The decision highlighted the significance of adhering to legal provisions and ensuring fair play in dealing with refund claims. Ultimately, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (A)'s order and emphasizing the need for proper jurisdictional considerations in refund matters.