Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Exports), ... on 22 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. C/42051/2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No.1059/2013 dated 30.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 22.08.2016 Final Order No. 41407 / 2016 Confusion arose between the parties when the appellant filed the refund application before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, (Group 7B), DEPB Cell, just on the day of expiry of limitation. Revenue says that the refund application ought to have been filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) and a day before the date of expiration of the limitation.
2. Perusal of the record shows that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that refund application ought to have been filed before jurisdictional customs officer. It is surprising to note from the scheme of the law that there is no definition of the word Customs officer. Only the word officer of Customs appears in Section 3 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section includes officers of different designations.
3. If the contention of Revenue is considered that refund application should have been filed before Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), they should have designated the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) to be the customs officer as is used in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus. dated 1.8.2008. The notification requires the jurisdictional customs officer to sanction the refund. In absence of the definition of jurisdictional customs officer and section 27 having used the term Assistant Commissioner /Deputy Commissioner of Customs to entertain the refund application, following the ratio laid down by Honble High Court of Madras in the cases of M/s. Medsource Ozone Biomedicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another reported in 2015-TIOL-2473-HC-MAD-CUS and M/s. Textile Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai & Another reported in 2016-TIOL-73-HC-MAD-CUS, the authority is required to dispose the application for refund within a month of receipt of this order. It is made clear that in absence of proper jurisdiction being notified and proper clarification to the assessee, the authority should not have caused confusion to him for consideration of the refund application.
4. Appellant is entitled to be dealt due process of law before the authority who shall dispose their application in accordance with law, applying section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the notifications above as well as the decisions of the Honble High Court of Madras within the time stipulated as aforesaid.
5. In the result, appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the reasons stated above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 3