2007 (6) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Bangalore on the strength of CT-3 Certificates issued by the Superintendent under whose jurisdiction, the recipient of the goods is situated. Later, the jurisdictional authorities of the recipient decided that the goods cleared by the appellant are not entitled for the benefit of exemption notification. Consequently, they initiated proceedings against the recipient of the impugned goods and recovered appropriate duty along with interest. Penalty was also imposed. It is seen that the recipient 100% EOU paid the duty, interest and penalty demanded by the department, but, recovered the sums from the appellant by way of deduction of the sum from the amount owed by them to the appellant. The appellants were highly aggrieved over the issue as t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure of the file stating that they did not intend to go for appeal against the department in the matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) stated "I find from Section 11B of the Customs Act (sic) that refund claim can be filed either by person who has paid the duty or by a person who has purchased the goods, and thus had borne the incidence of duty. In this case, I find that the appellants have neither paid the duty nor are they the purchaser of the final goods. Therefore, I am of the view that in terms of Section 11B of the Customs Act, the appellants have no locus standi to file the refund claim. " 3.2 Both the lower authorities had decided the issue questioning the locus standi of the appellants. They had not examined the entire issue on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty under protest and would support the appellant in subsequent appeals. The duty had been paid on 16-8-2001. When the appellant learnt that duty had been paid, they advised M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. for getting an appealable order from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs so that they can take up the matter for settlement. Further, it is seen that M/s. Sasken could not cooperate with the appellant in order to have better relations with the Customs. While communicating that duty had been paid, M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., in their letter dated 21-8-2001, informed the appellant that the entire amount of duty, interest and penalties if any, will be deducted from SPCL bills. Further, they had also enclosed a ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacturer and, therefore, they are entitled to agitate the validity of such reclassification which could not be done in the civil suit. In other words, it was held that the appellants suffer adverse civil consequences and, have therefore, the locus to challenge the reclassification. As far as the issue of locus standi is concerned, the facts of this case are similar to M/s. IDL Chemicals Ltd case. The locus standi question has to be decided on the facts of each case. Just because the appellant is not a licencee in the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, it cannot be held that he has no locus standi. Further, Section 11B was amended in 1991 providing for filing refund claim even by a purchaser. It is evident that a purchaser does not ....