TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excavator' and paid 4% SAD amounting to Rs.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 Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order while sanctioning the refund of Rs. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the refund claim before the Commissioner of Customs, Import & 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. [(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agree with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who based on the ratio of the judgments cited by the respondents before him had accepted the appeal. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Lower Authority was right in the view it took. The appeal hence fails and is accordingly dismissed. Since no other issue has been raised and considerable time has elapsed, the refund may be sanctioned expeditiously as per law." 5. The legal issue has been dealt with in the above order. I hold that since the refund was filed on time albeit in the wrong jurisdiction the claim could not have been rejected on the ground of time bar but should have been transferred to the Competent Authority. That being the case, the claim has to be exam....