2015 (10) TMI 2263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpany, which is in the business of manufacture, research and development of Vitro Diagnostics, which had its development unit at Faridabad, wherein more than 200 skilled and technical personnel are employed. For the purpose of conducting its business, the petitioner entity causes imports of various specialized equipments , consumables, chemicals and other Diagnostics material from various countries. The petitioner entity has been favoured with an Importer Exporter Code (IEC), issued by the office of the JDGFT, New Delhi and also favoured with PAN by the Income Tax Department. 2.2 During the course of its business, the petitioner caused import of "Clinical Chemistry Analyser with standard accessories", " Diagnositc Reagent" and 'Urine R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of hearing been given to the petitioner, all these facts could have been established before the authority. On the other hand, without giving an opportunity, the impugned orders 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laim to the DC/AC in the Air Cargo. However, the order of the lower appellate authority transferring the refund claim to the dealing Assistant/Deputy 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." 3.2 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 orders are liable to be quashed. 4. The lea....