Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal remands case to Customs House for refund processing after allowing appeal. Procedural lapses rectified.</h1> <h3>M/s. GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PVT, LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [PORT-EXPORT], CHENNAI</h3> M/s. GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PVT, LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [PORT-EXPORT], CHENNAI - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction for filing refund claims.2. Procedural lapses and their impact on substantive remedies.3. Compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.4. Violation of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing.5. Timeliness and proper forum for refund claims.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction for Filing Refund Claims:The core issue was whether the rejection of refund claims on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was proper. The appellant imported components of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG) through Tuticorin Port and filed refund claims for Special Additional Duty (SAD) before the Chennai Commissionerate instead of the Tuticorin Customs House. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claims due to this jurisdictional error.2. Procedural Lapses and Their Impact on Substantive Remedies:The appellant argued that the claims were filed within the time prescribed by Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. and included all necessary documents. They contended that the Customs House, Chennai, should have transferred the claims to the appropriate jurisdiction or at least issued a deficiency memo. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner-1991 (55) ELT 437 (S.C.), emphasizing that procedural lapses should not negate substantive remedies.3. Compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus:According to Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., the importer must file a refund claim with the jurisdictional Customs officer where the goods were imported. The claims were filed in Chennai instead of Tuticorin, leading to their rejection. The Tribunal noted that the claims were filed within the prescribed time, and the procedural defect of filing before the wrong jurisdiction should not foreclose the substantive remedy of refund.4. Violation of Natural Justice Due to Lack of Personal Hearing:The appellant highlighted that they were not given a personal hearing before the rejection of their claims, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the adjudicating authority should have conducted a preliminary scrutiny and pointed out any deficiencies, allowing the appellant to resubmit the claims to the correct jurisdiction within the stipulated time.5. Timeliness and Proper Forum for Refund Claims:The Tribunal examined the timeline of the refund claims and found that all claims were filed within the time prescribed by the notification. The Tribunal also referenced the case of M/s. AIA Engineering Ltd., which held that a refund application filed within time but before the wrong authority should not be considered time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be given an opportunity to present their claims before the correct jurisdictional authority.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Customs House, Tuticorin, directing them to process the refund claims in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not deny substantive remedies and that the appellant should be given a chance to rectify the jurisdictional error. The appeal was thus allowed by way of remand to the proper jurisdictional authority.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found