Tribunal Upheld Order Allowing Cash Redemption, Dismissed Revenue's Appeal

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order allowing redemption of seized cash on payment of a fine, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the reliance on challenged case law was justified as there was no stay order from the High Court. Despite certain submissions not being considered by the Commissioner, the Tribunal deemed it insufficient to set aside the order. The respondent's cross-objections were not addressed due to a failure to file within the stipulated period, leading to the denial of their request for additional time.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against redemption of seized cash on payment of fine
- Challenge of impugned order on grounds of reliance on challenged case law and non-consideration of submissions
- Cross-objections not considered by Commissioner
- Quantum of redemption fine not addressed

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order allowing redemption of seized cash on payment of a fine. The Revenue raised two grounds of appeal. Firstly, they contested the reliance on a case law challenged before the High Court, arguing that the decision cannot be relied upon. Secondly, they claimed that certain contentions were not presented before the adjudicating authority, thus seeking to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back for reconsideration.

2. The respondent, represented by their counsel, highlighted that they had also filed cross-objections to the Revenue's appeal before the Commissioner. However, the cross-objections were not considered, and the issue of the quantum of redemption fine was left unaddressed. The respondent requested more time to file cross-objections.

3. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue had filed the appeal in September 2016, and the respondent had not submitted any cross-objections within the stipulated 45-day period. Despite a subsequent application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal found that the respondent had received the appeal papers and had the opportunity to file cross-objections, thus denying the request for additional time.

4. The Tribunal examined the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Regarding the first ground, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner had not considered certain submissions made by the respondent, as recorded in para 7.1 of the impugned order. However, the Tribunal determined that this alone was not sufficient to set aside the order.

5. The second ground raised by the Revenue was the challenge to the reliance on a specific case law. The Tribunal noted that as no stay order had been issued by the High Court against the case law in question, the pendency of an appeal did not warrant setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---