TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold the goods, which it could not have done, since the appeal was pending at the relevant time, we find that there is no good reason for adjustment of redemption fine. Both sides agree that the question of law in this matter was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the High Court of Delhi - Learned authorised representative for the Revenue has also placed on record a letter from the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad confirming that the decision of the High Court has been accepted by the department. In other words, there is no further appeal pending before the Supreme Court and the matter has attained finality. Revenue s appeal cannot be allowed as the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny claim on the goods. During the course of personal hearing the importer claimed that they were facing acute financial crisis and sought time till 31.10.2012 to clear the goods. The adjudicating authority passed an order-in-original dated 26.11.2012 confiscating the goods in 16 containers under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 giving the respondent an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Commissioner (Appeals) initially disposed of the appeal on 20.08.2013 as not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (358) ELT 113 (Tri.-Del.) ] to contend that once the goods were not available for redemption, the redemption fine cannot be deducted from the sale proceeds. The Division Bench hearing the appeal, referred the matter to a Larger Bench vide Misc. Order Nos. MO/50151-50152/2020-CU(DB), dated 13.3.2020 in view of the conflicting decisions. 6. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal accepted the argument advanced on behalf of Revenue that the order of confiscation was not set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence once the goods have been auctioned, the goods get replaced by the sale proceeds and they can be redeemed only on payment of redemption fine. The Larger Bench also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew taken by the larger bench of the Tribunal. The decision of the larger bench, according to us, deserves to be set aside. 27.1 It is ordered accordingly. 28. The next steps in the appeal will follow in view of the opinion expressed by us hereinabove. 29. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 30. Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed. 9. Both sides agree that the question of law in this matter was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the High Court of Delhi. 10. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue has also placed on record a letter from the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad confirming that the decision of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
