2024 (11) TMI 1356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....76,63,869/-. The appellant filed refund claim for refund of 4% SAD paid on the imported goods under 66 Bills of Entry (BE). The refund sanctioning authority after due process of law allowed refund to the tune of Rs.39,14,822/- and rejected refund claim of Rs.35,27,855/- for non-fulfillment of conditions 2(e)(iii) since the date of sales invoice being prior to out-of-charge and he also rejected the claim for Rs.2,21,192/- for non-fulfilment of condition 2(c) of Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.9.207, since the refund claim pertained to Kolkata Port. Aggrieved by the partial refund amount of Rs.38,49,047/-, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The First Appellate Authority allowed refund of Rs.35,27,8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 35, 27, 855/- after verifying the records, rejected their appeal with regard to the balance claim of Rs.2,21,192/-, by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hyderabad Industries Versus Commissioner of CEX New Delhi. The Ld. Counsel stated that the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the first place failed to see that the claim pertaining to the above solidary BE was filed along with the other BEs as early as on 28.09.2010 which was well within the time provided for making the claim and in fact more than two months was available to them to file the claim. The claim was disposed of only after more than three and half year. Further in Hyderabad Industries (supra) relied upon by the Original Authority, the Hon'ble Tribunal relied....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t & General, New Delhi within one year from the date of payment of duty. However, it is their case that the same cannot be taken as the date of filing before the actual jurisdictional Commissionerate viz. Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Air Commissionerate, Chennai. It is Revenue's contention that filing of a refund claim in a wrong jurisdiction cannot be taken lightly and cannot be condoned. This is perhaps a very narrow view and does not fit into the role of the department as a facilitator nor does it have the express sanction of law. As stated by Hon'ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer speaking for a Division Bench in State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr. [(1976) 1 SCC 719] : "8. ...We must always remember that p....