Refund of seized balance after penalty recovery: continued retention was unlawful once adjudication was complete.

Once adjudication was completed and the penalty was recovered from the seized money, the seizure merged into the adjudication order and the remaining balance could no longer be retained. The authority was required to deal with that balance strictly in accordance with the adjudication order, and administrative inconvenience, pendency of appeal, or absence of the seizing officer did not justify withholding payment. The balance amount of Rs. 70,000 was therefore required to be refunded, and continued retention of the seized surplus was unlawful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the balance amount remaining after recovery of penalty from the seized sum was liable to be refunded to the appellant and whether continued retention of that balance was lawful.

Analysis: Once adjudication was completed and the penalty amount was recovered from the seized money, the seizure stood merged in the adjudication order. The remaining amount ceased to be liable to retention and had to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the adjudication order. Administrative inconvenience, pendency of appeal, or the absence of the seizing officer could not justify withholding the balance amount. The refund ought to have been effected promptly by the authority responsible for compliance with the order.

Conclusion: The balance amount of Rs. 70,000 was required to be refunded to the appellant, and its further retention was unlawful.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to immediate return of the balance seized amount, and the respondent authority was directed to make payment accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: After an adjudication order is passed and the penalty is recovered from the seized amount, the seizure order merges into the adjudication order and any remaining balance must be refunded; continued retention is unlawful.

---