Heard Mr.S.Muthuvenkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 10.04.2017, rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition, filed against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), dated 24.01.2017.
3. The petitioner filed a refund claim of SAD in terms of Notification dated 14.9.2007, before the Refund Department of the Chennai IV Commissionarate. The said application was returned vide the impugned communication dated 21.4.2017, with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority. When this order was put to challenge, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the communication returning the claim without processing is correct and when the Refunds department does not have jurisdiction over the subject refund claim, it does not have any authority/locus standi to take up such a claim for processing. Therefore, held that the only way out is either to reject the claim or to return the claim to enable the claimant/appellant to file the same before the appropriate jurisdictional authority.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Assistant Commissioner (Refund), having chosen to return the claim, the said communication is legal and proper. Consequently, the appeal petition was rejected, as the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) had only returned the petitioner's claim.
5. When the writ petition came up earlier, this court directed the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue to obtain written instructions from the respondents as to, who will be the proper officer to entertain the refund claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds/Sea) has given a written communication dated 31.07.2017, stating that the Assistant /Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VII Air Cargo Commissionerate is the proper officer to deal with the refund claim. Thus, taking note of the fact that the matter has to be dealt with the proper officer, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate direction in this regard.
6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner may be directed to approach the proper officer and file claim. When the department finds that the refund claim had been made before the incorrect authority, the proper course and the reasonable approach that should have been adopted is to forward the papers to the proper officer with due intimation to the petitioner. Unfortunately, that was not done in the instant case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, by directing the petitioner to re present the refund claim dated 30.10.2016, which was returned to the petitioner and received by them on 25.01.2017 to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs Chennai VII Air Cargo Commissionerate, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the said authority is directed to process the refund claim by reckoning the date of application as 15.02.2016 for all purposes. Since the said authority is not a party to the writ petition, the Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Commissionarate, Chennai-1. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
01.08.2017 svki/sli Index:yes/no Internet:yes To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.
2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai- 600 001
3. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Commissionarate, Chennai-1.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.
sli W.P.No.13253 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.14240 of 2017 01.08.2017