2006 (1) TMI 306 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Seized Currency Refund Claim; Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Participation Forfeits Appeal Rights

SHARP INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

SHARP INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 100 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Refund claim of seized currency; Application of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme; Rejection of refund claim; Confiscation of Indian currency; Appeal against rejection.Refund Claim of Seized Currency:The case involved a refund claim of Rs. 24,75,700/- seized by DGAE officers during a search, along with documents leading to a duty demand of Rs. 1,28,31,891.95. The Tribunal previously set aside an order confirming the demand and confiscation, remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. In the subsequent adjudication, the demand was confirmed, penalties imposed, and the seized currency confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of a fine.Application of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme:Before the appeal was decided, the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was introduced. The appellant availed the scheme, filing a declaration accepted by the authority. However, no declaration was filed regarding the Indian currency, with the appellant indicating that a refund claim would be filed separately.Rejection of Refund Claim:After a prolonged legal battle, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on 9-7-2001. The appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) also failed, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.Confiscation of Indian Currency:The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the currency was confiscated as per the original order due to the lack of redemption evidence within the specified period. The benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was deemed to forfeit the right to appeal. The order under the scheme did not allow adjustment of the currency amount against duty payable, as it was considered confiscated.Appeal Against Rejection:During the proceedings, it was noted that the Indian currency was seized with an option for redemption in the de novo order. Despite the appeal to the Tribunal, the disputed amounts were settled under the KVSS Scheme, excluding the currency. The Commissioner's order confiscating the currency with a redemption option was upheld, making a later refund claim invalid.The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, rejecting it based on the finality of the confiscation order and the lack of higher authority setting it aside for a refund claim to be valid. The appellant's failure to secure a reversal of the confiscation order meant the currency could not be refunded, as per the legal principles governing such cases.