TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Appeal No.12788 of 2018-DB. 2. The appellant has proposed the following questions of law for the consideration of this Court : "[A] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, an appeal under Section 129A(3) was maintainable before the CESTAT, challenging a Compounding Order passed by the Compounding Authority? [B] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the CESTAT was right in interpreting the Order in Original dated 31.03.2005 and coming to a conclusion that there was no demand of redemption fine? [C] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the respondent was entitled to compounding of offences under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that there was no demand of redemption fine?" 3. So far as the first question of law as proposed by the Revenue is concerned, the same stands answered vide judgment and order rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Girish B. Mishra; Tax Appeal No.951 of 2012, decided on 13th February, 2013. We may quote the relevant observationas contained in Paragraph-7. "7. The "Adjudicating Authority" has been defined in Section 2(a) ofthe Central Excise Act, 1944 as under:- "(a) "Adjudicating authority" means any authority competent to pass any order or decision under this Act, but does not include the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny such order would certainly be an order passed under the Act. The words "any order or decision under the Act" used in Section 2(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, defining the term, "Adjudicating authority", must take in its fold an order deciding the lis of a party and would not include merely an administrative order. In the present case, however, the Commissioner's order does decide the question of compoundability of an offence of the applicant concerned and would therefore, in our view, satisfy the description of any order or decision passed by him under this Act. In that view of the matter, appeal against any such order would lie before the Tribunal in terms of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view, there is no case of demand of redemption fine,Therefore, the rejection of application for non-payment or redemption fine if not correct and legal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed. The Chief Commissioner (Competent Authority) is directed to reconsider the application for compounding, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of this order and pass a fresh order." 6. It appears from the above that the tribunal looked into the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shivam Development Trust And Another Vs. Union of India; Special Civil Application No.7301 of 2015; decided on 03rd May 2016. The Co-ordinate Bench observed in Paragraph-6 as under:- "....