Remand order nullifies penalties; duty liability recalculated; appellants eligible for refund; impugned order set aside.

BAJAJ AUTO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

BAJAJ AUTO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 698 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Duty demand confirmation, penalty imposition, redemption fine, remand order interpretation, refund of redemption fine.

Duty Demand Confirmation: The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,21,41,847.25, imposed a penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs, and confiscated property with a redemption fine under an order dated 14-7-93. The Tribunal, in a majority order, confirmed demands for a limited period and remanded the appeal for determining the duty amount for six months. The Tribunal did not set aside the original order, nor address the penalty and redemption fine specifically.

Interpretation of Remand Order: The department argued that since the Tribunal remanded the matter for quantifying duty for six months without setting aside the original order or addressing penalty and fine, those aspects remained untouched. The Tribunal's action on the refund of the redemption fine was challenged, but no steps were taken to recover the penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs.

Penalty and Fine Refund: The appellants had obtained a stay on duty and penalty pending appeal, deposited the redemption fine, and later sought a refund. The Tribunal's remand for re-determination of duty liability for a limited period implied annulling the original order entirely. As the duty demand was reduced for a shorter period, it was deemed that the penalty and fine should also be adjusted accordingly. The appellants were found not liable for duty for the specified period, justifying the refund of the redemption fine.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's remand order was interpreted to nullify the original order, including the penalty and fine. The duty liability being determined for a shorter period meant the penalty and fine should be recalculated accordingly. The appellants were deemed eligible for the refund of the redemption fine. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the original order granting the refund was restored. The appeal was allowed.