Succession certificate may prove refund entitlement, but relief cannot extend to a non-appellant against a final order.

A succession certificate issued after judicial verification of deposit can support refund of redemption fine without insisting on the original TR-6 challan, where payment of the amount is otherwise undisputed and the legal heirs derive entitlement from the unconditional release order. The refund claim on that basis was upheld. However, appellate relief cannot be extended to a claimant who did not challenge the order-in-original, because the order attains finality against that person. The refund direction in favour of the non-appellant claimant was therefore set aside, and relief was confined to the appellant who had properly appealed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the legal heirs were entitled to refund of the redemption fine on the strength of the succession certificate without producing the original TR-6 challan as proof of payment; and (ii) whether relief could be granted to a claimant who had not appealed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

Issue (i): whether the legal heirs were entitled to refund of the redemption fine on the strength of the succession certificate without producing the original TR-6 challan as proof of payment.

Analysis: The payment of redemption fine by the deceased was not in dispute, and the entitlement of his legal heirs to refund flowed from the order of unconditional release of the seized gold ornaments. The succession certificate had been issued after the competent court took evidence regarding deposit of the amount. In that situation, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have acted on the succession certificate and granted refund without insisting on further evidence of payment.

Conclusion: The refund claim supported by the succession certificate was maintainable, and the direction to refund the amount claimed by the appellant-respondent was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether relief could be granted to a claimant who had not appealed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: The lower appellate authority could not extend relief to the sister who had not challenged the order-in-original, because that order had attained finality against her. The appellate relief was therefore confined to the claimant who had preferred the appeal.

Conclusion: The direction granting refund to the non-appellant claimant was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellate relief was restricted to the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the remaining portion of the refund direction was vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: A succession certificate, obtained after judicial verification of the deposit, can suffice for refund of the amount, but appellate relief cannot be granted in favour of a person against whom the original order has become final for want of appeal.

---