TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Certificate of Registration could be revoked for breach of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) whether the penalty imposed was liable to be reduced; and (iii) whether interest earned on seized money, when the principal amount was not liable to confiscation, was refundable.
Issue (i): Whether the Certificate of Registration could be revoked for breach of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The question was treated as already settled by earlier decisions of the same Bench, which had held that revocation of the Certificate of Registration for breach of Rule 57GG was not sustainable. Following that settled view, the impugned revocation could not be maintained.
Conclusion: The revocation of the Certificate of Registration was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was liable to be reduced.
Analysis: The penalty was examined against penalties sustained in similar matters arising from comparable breaches. The Tribunal accepted that penalties in similar cases should be broadly uniform and that the penalty imposed in the present matter was excessive when compared with the penalty sustained in the earlier comparable case.
Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 2,500 in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether interest earned on seized money, when the principal amount was not liable to confiscation, was refundable.
Analysis: Once the seized amount itself was found not liable to confiscation, retention of the interest earned on that amount had no legal basis. The interest, if earned on money belonging to the assessee and retained by the authorities, had to follow the fate of the principal amount and be returned.
Conclusion: The interest earned on the seized amount was held refundable in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The order of revocation was annulled, the penalty was substantially reduced, and the interest attributable to the seized amount was directed to be refunded, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where seized money is not liable to confiscation, any interest earned on that money and retained by the authorities is also refundable to the person entitled to the principal amount.
TaxTMI 
