2017 (10) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

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

CCE & ST, Raipur Versus N.R. Wires Pvt. Ltd.

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 ... Redemption fine - seized cash - appeal was filed by the Revenue on 8.9.2016 and copy of the same was served on the respondent. Respondents were required to file cross objection, if any, within 45 days of the receipt of the appeal memo - Held that: - Admittedly, till date, no cross objections have been filed by the respondents. Moreover, on 15.11.2016, the application for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue was considered by this Tribunal and on the said day Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and attended the proceedings. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appeal papers have not been received by the respondent and they were debarred the opportunity of filing of the cross-objections. Therefore, at this stage, again time is sought to file cross objection which is not permissible. Stay order - no stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble High Court against the order of this Tribunal - Held that: - the same cannot be the reason that as the appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court against the order of this Tribunal to set aside the impugned order. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. 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 addressedAnalysis: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.