TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led refund claims on the ground that the first appellate authority had reduced the fine and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority on a consignment of old and used photocopier machines imported. It is undisputed that the appellate authority's orders of revision of redemption fine and penalty have attained finality. Consequent to such orders, the refund claims were filed by the assesses/appellants herein, the same were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that original documents were not produced by the assessees and they are required for sanctioning the refund i.e. original documents like Bill of Entry and TR6 challans. Aggrieved by such a rejection of refund claims by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellants herein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of excess amount paid by the assesses during the proceedings. It is not in dispute that the Adjudicating Authority had imposed higher redemption fine and higher penalty on the confiscation of imported second hand photocopiers. The appellants herein in order to clear the consignments paid the amounts which have been ascertained by the Adjudicating Authority and exercised their right of appeal before the first appellate authority as provided under the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority was convinced by the contentions raised by the assesses/appellants and he modified the adjudication orders and reduced redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he adjudication order referred to above, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by Exhibit P3 order, reduced the duty, fine and penalty. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a refund application. However that was not entertained on the ground that the petitioner had not produced original of the TR 6 Challan and what was produced was only an attested copy. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed seeking the prayers referred to above. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to them, production of original of the TR 6 challan is a mandatory requirement for processing the refund application. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides, in this wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reproduced judgment that the issue is now settled by the judgment. It is seen that CBEC, vide Circular dt. 2-1-2002 has also given similar instructions to field formations. Revenue today cannot argue against their own circular, though the point put forth is that the CBEC's Circular dt. 2-1-2002 will be only applicable in the case of pre-deposit as ordered by the High Court. To my mind, this proposition cannot carry the case of the Revenue any further as the right of the assessee to prefer an appeal against an order which he aggrieved, is a right which cannot be considered to have been forfeited, on the ground of depositing the amount which has been ordered by the Adjudicating Authority. The amount deposited by the assessee consequent to t....