AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s falling under CTH 3507 and has been importing goods at Bangalore ICD, ACC, and Chennai Sea Port regularly. The appellant has inadvertently paid the amount twice towards certain bill of entries covered by the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal due to ICEGATE/EDI problem and had claimed refund of the excess payment. The appellant filed refund application with the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), ICD, Bengaluru for refund of an amount of Rs. 92,07,343/- on account of excess payment due to EDI/ICEGATE problem which resulted in double payment towards Customs duty, along with refund application, the appellant had submitted confirmation from PAO, New Delhi which confirmed double payment towards certain bill of entries. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further submitted that the refund has been claimed towards excess deposit of the amount which was never appropriated towards any bill of entry. He further submitted that the double payments were made towards clearance of goods and due to ICEGATE problem, the appellant was asked to pay the duty twice with respect of Bill of Entry No.7887737 dated 20.12.2016 and 7888334 dated 20.12.2016. He further submitted that the factum of double payment has been admitted by the original authority but the original authority wrongly rejected the refund with regard to these two bills of entry on the ground that he is not the competent authority to grant the refund and the appellant should file the refund before ACC, Bangalore. He further submitted that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the original authority did not issue any Deficiency Memo on the ground of jurisdiction. He further submitted that it is not in dispute that the first claim filed before the Assistant Commissioner, ICD, Bangalore, was in time and if he had no jurisdiction then it was incumbent upon him to send the application to the concerned officer who had jurisdiction and he relied upon the decision in the case of Singh International Vs CC (General), 2014-TIOL-2369-CESTAT-MUM wherein it was held by the Tribunal that "since the original application for refund was filed within time, though before wrong authority, it cannot be said that the application was barred by limitation- Appeals allowed: CESTAT" 4.2. He further submitted that it has been consistently....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a defect of jurisdiction then it was incumbent upon the Assistant Commissioner to raise a Deficiency Memo and should have returned those bills of entry to the appellant so that the appellant could have filed the refund clam before the correct jurisdictional authority but that Deficiency Memo was not issued and finally when the Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2019 was issued then the refund of Rs. 10,49,491/- was not granted. Further, I find that subsequent adjudication authority rejected the refund only on account of time bar without appreciating that originally refund was filed in time before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Bangalore. Both the authorities have failed to consider the decision rendered in the case of Singh Interna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring both sides and considering the records and documents, we find that this is a matter which should not have travelled to this Tribunal at all. The original adjudicating authority had acted correctly. It has to be noted that refund claim has been made immediately and refund received within the financial year and therefore, question of showing it as expenditure would not arise at all. It cannot also be shown as receivable since the original adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund on 14-12-2012. The importation took place on 7-9-2012. The second payment was made on the advice of department and because of the helplessness of the department to connect payment earlier made to the Bill of entry and make the computer system facilitate clear....