TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er are that respondent, Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nokia or respondent) had filed refund applications for refund of 4% additional duty of customs related to import of mobile phones. The refund claims were filed in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dt. 14.09.2007. The refund claims related to Appeal Nos.C/193/2009, C/279/2009, C/280/2009, C/281, 282/2009 were filed by Nokia before Asst. Commissioner, Seaport Commissionerate instead of Asst. Commissioner, Airport. It transpires that the Asst. Commissioner (Seaport) even sanctioned refund covered by Appeal No. C/193/2009. Subsequently, on realizing that the applications had not been filed with jurisdictional officer, demand notice was issued to Nokia to pay up amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Department have filed appeals against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. On 26,07.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the department, Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the grounds of appeal. He further submits that refund in these cases involve exemption notification under Section 25 (1) of Customs Act. The fundamental premise in granting any exemption notification is that to claim this benefit all the accompanying conditions must be satisfied. Neither ignorance nor wrong interpretation can be grounds for any conditions in the implementation of the notification. The filing of the refund claims in the Sea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual filing of the claims and hence the claims are not hit by limitation. Ld. Advocate further submits that in view of OIA in respect of Appeal No.C/40338/2014, C/40040/2014 to C/40443/2014 and Appeal Nos.C/193/2009 and C/279/2009 to C/282/2009 have become infructuous and therefore liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the matter. The higher appellate forums have been consistently taking the view that filing of refund claims before a wrong jurisdiction will not vitiate the claims on the grounds of limitation, if otherwise filed within the prescribed time limit. We find ourselves in agreement with the reliance of the lower appellate authority in the ratio laid down by CESTAT in Poulose & Matthen Vs CC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we find that it is proper to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the concerned original authority (refund sanctioning authority) in Air Cargo Complex to consider the claim of the appellant as if the same had been filed within time. Needless to say, the appellant will be given sufficient opportunity of supporting their claim. Appeal is allowed by remand." 7. Viewed in this light, we are unable to find any infirmity in the orders of the lower appellate authority remanding the matter back to the original authority for de novo consideration as if the claims have been filed within time limit before the jurisdictional Sea Customs. In any case, the lower appellate authority has only held that the impugned claims are not hi....