Jurisdictional error in SAD refund rejection led to remand for fresh decision by the competent customs authority.

Rejection of a SAD refund claim solely for lack of jurisdiction was unsustainable once the competent Customs Commissionerate had already been clarified by the High Court and Board Circular No. 11/2017-Cus. The proper authority was identified as the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII, so the jurisdictional objection could not defeat the claim. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the SAD refund claim on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was sustainable and, if not, whether the matter should be decided afresh by the proper authority.

Analysis: The refund had been rejected only on the jurisdictional ground. The jurisdictional issue had already been settled by the High Court, relying on Board's Circular No. 11/2017-Cus. dated 31.3.2017, under which the concerned Customs Commissionerate was competent to decide the SAD refund claim. In the present case, the proper jurisdiction was identified as Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VII.

Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of jurisdiction was not sustained, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The refund dispute was reopened for decision by the competent authority after correcting the jurisdictional error.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim rejected solely on an erroneous jurisdictional premise cannot stand once the competent jurisdiction is settled by the applicable administrative circular and judicial clarification; the matter must be remanded for decision on merits by the proper authority.

---