TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commissioner rules in favor of respondents, denies Revenue's appeal for seized cash refund.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUCKNOW Versus DURGA TRADING COMPANY</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., LUCKNOW Versus DURGA TRADING COMPANY - 2018 (363) E.L.T. 656 (Tri. - All.) Issues:1. Confiscation of cash and goods during search operation2. Adjudication of show cause notice by Commissioner3. Remand by CESTAT for de novo adjudication4. Order for release of seized cash by Commissioner5. Refund application and sanction by Assistant Commissioner6. Review by Commissioner and appeal by Revenue7. Disposal of Revenue's appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)Confiscation of cash and goods during search operation:The case involved the search of manufacturing premises resulting in the seizure of unaccounted cash and detection of shortage/excess of raw material/finished goods. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of seized goods and cash, leading to adjudication by the Commissioner, who ordered confiscation of cash and imposition of penalties.Adjudication of show cause notice by Commissioner:The Commissioner's order-in-original confirmed the demand, confiscated seized goods, and imposed penalties. The respondents appealed to CESTAT, which remanded the case for de novo adjudication. Subsequently, the Commissioner readjudicated the case and ordered the release of the seized cash.Remand by CESTAT for de novo adjudication:After the remand by CESTAT, the Commissioner re-adjudicated the case and released the seized cash. The respondents then applied for a refund, which was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Order for release of seized cash by Commissioner:The Commissioner's order for the release of the seized cash prompted the respondents to file a refund application, which was approved by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Commissioner, exercising powers under Section 35E, reviewed the order and directed the Revenue to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).Refund application and sanction by Assistant Commissioner:The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund under Section 11B, but the Commissioner reviewed the decision, deeming it improper and directing the Revenue to file an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) ultimately allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the refund order and instructing the department officers to release the cash to the respondents.Review by Commissioner and appeal by Revenue:The Commissioner, under Section 35E, reviewed the Assistant Commissioner's order and found it legally improper, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the refund of the seized cash to the respondents.Disposal of Revenue's appeal by Commissioner (Appeals):The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that the seized cash should be refunded to the respondents upon the success of their main case, as it does not fall under the category of duty or interest refundable under Section 11B. The Commissioner upheld the previous order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
