M/S.Medsource Ozone vs Unknown on 21 September, 2015
3.1 According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, both the authorities i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Customs House and Air Cargo Complex have concurrent jurisdiction over the ports as well as the Airport under Notification No.15/2012-Cus/(NT), dated 7.3.2002. Had an opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioner, all these facts could have been established before the authority. On the other hand, without giving an opportunity, the impugned orders came to be passed. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the Judgment reported in 2012(284) ELT 218 (Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd.) submitted that in the event of the 2nd respondent finding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim, he ought to have pointed out the same to the petitioner by issuing deficiency memo, which has not been done. Further, having found that the refund claim of the petitioner was in order in all aspects, the 2nd respondent ought to have transferred the files to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) at Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai. In these circumstances, it is useful to extract the relevant passage of the judgement cited above, which reads as follows:-