Factory location determines territorial jurisdiction for duty refund claims, not payment location

CESTAT Allahabad ruled on territorial jurisdiction for duty refund claims. The appellant company's factory was located in Ghaziabad, making the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad the jurisdictional authority for refund matters, not Noida authorities. The court held that territorial jurisdiction for refund is determined by factory location where duty was originally paid. The Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad correctly sanctioned the cash refund of excess duty. Previous litigation had attained finality with no further appeals by Revenue. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed, confirming Ghaziabad's jurisdiction over the refund matter.

---

---

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of refund sanctioning authority and the territorial jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners.

Jurisdiction of refund sanctioning authority:
The case involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the refund sanctioning authority. The Appellant's factory was located in Ghaziabad Division, and the Assistant Commissioner there had initially rejected the refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) at Noida ordered cash refund, which was later sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner at Ghaziabad. However, the Revenue contended that the refund should have been sanctioned by the CGST authorities at Noida. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the cash refund's finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) at Meerut allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the cash refund should have been sanctioned by the authorities at Noida. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Commissioner at Ghaziabad had the jurisdiction to grant the refund. The Tribunal held that the refund was rightly sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Commissioner at Ghaziabad, who had jurisdiction over the factory premises where the disputed duty was paid.

Territorial jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners:
The Tribunal emphasized that the factory of M/s TTL Ltd. was located in Ghaziabad, establishing the territorial jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad Division. The clearance of electric meters and payment of Central Excise duty occurred in Ghaziabad Division. The Tribunal noted that the CGST authorities at Noida did not have territorial jurisdiction over the factories in Ghaziabad Division. The Order-in-Appeal endorsed to Noida authorities was deemed a mistake, as it should have been endorsed to the authority who passed the impugned order. The Tribunal highlighted that the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners is determined based on the location of the factory. The surrender of the Registration Certificate by M/s TTL Ltd. to the Assistant Commissioner at Ghaziabad further supported the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad authority. The Tribunal concluded that the refund was rightly sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad, given the location of the factory and payment of duty in that Division.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, upholding the Order-In-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad. The appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed, emphasizing the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad over the refund sanctioning process.

---