Territorial jurisdiction objection cannot cancel an otherwise admissible Cenvat credit refund; transfer to the proper officer is the correct course.

Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be set aside solely because the application was filed before an officer said to lack territorial jurisdiction. Where the refund had already been sanctioned and there was no dispute on entitlement or merits, the proper course was to return or transfer the papers to the correct authority rather than annul the sanction. The jurisdictional objection, by itself, did not justify cancellation of an otherwise admissible refund order, and no remand was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be set aside solely because the refund application was filed before an officer said to lack territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The refund claim had already been sanctioned and there was no dispute regarding the assessee's entitlement to refund or the legality of the claim on merits. The only objection was jurisdictional. Where the sanctioning officer was allegedly not the proper officer, the appropriate course was to return or transfer the papers for presentation before the correct authority, not to annul the refund order on that ground alone. Since the refund was otherwise admissible and there was no merits-based dispute, remand was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection did not justify setting aside the refund sanction, and the assessee succeeded.

---