2015 (10) TMI 958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 06.08.2015 and to direct the respondents herein to disburse the refund amount of Rs. 3 ,11,952 /- with interest at appropriate rates. 3.1 Petitioner company is a Private Limited Company, which involved in the business of import and local sale of medical equipments , surgical instruments, surgical and medical formulations etc., and its unit functions from Mayapuri Industrial Area-I, New Delhi. The petitioner entity is assessed to local value added tax, on its local sale and turnover besides income tax. For causing imports, the petitioner has registered with the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, New Delhi and has been allotted Import Export Code No.0506043835. 3.2 During the course of its....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty, the impugned order came to be passed. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the Judgment reported in 2012 (284) ELT 218 (Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd.) submitted that in the event of the 2nd respondent finding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim, he ought to have pointed out the same to the petitioner by issuing deficiency memo, which has not been done. Further, having found that the refund claim of the petitioner was in order in all aspects, the 2nd respondent ought to have transferred the files to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) at Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam , Chennai . In these circumstances, it is useful....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y Commissioner in the Air Cargo complex cannot be said to be not legal and proper, even though he has passed the said order or other reasons. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the department. The stay application filed by the department also stands disposed of." 3.4 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Commissioner of Customs have concurrent jurisdiction and hence, there is no impediment for the authority to consider the claim of the refund and on that basis prayed that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that pursuant to clause 2(c) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus., dated 14.09.2007, the....