TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal No. C/21236/2016 dated 02.08.2017 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Regional Bench at Bangalore. The Tribunal, through order in Annexure C dated 02.08.2017, ordered refund of a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs paid towards redemption fine and Rs. 5 lakhs towards penalty by M/s. S V Sivalinga Nadar and Sons, the respondent herein. 2. To appreciate the circumstances under which the claim for refund has been made by the respondent and accepted by the Tribunal, we find it convenient to chronologically refer to the Customs Appeal No.3/2018 following dates and events in the matter. 3. The respondent imported goods as per Bill of Entry No.221 dated 15.04.1988. The Collector of Customs by order dated 14.06.1988 levied r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the quantum of the profit. We further note that the appellant's appeal remains dismissed by the Special Bench by Order No.C/91 & 92/92- D, dated 04.03.1992, a copy of which has been produced before us. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and leaving all the issues open to be decided in accordance with law by the adjudicating authority, we remand the matter for disposing of the issue in accordance with law and taking note of the observations of the Tribunal in the order referred to earlier. Ordered accordingly. Shri J M Jeyaseelan, the learned DR submitted that the adjudicating authority may also be directed to verify as to whether the duty levied on the consignment in question relates to the appellant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent. The respondent, in the year 2011-12, applied for refund of redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs apparently on the premise that there is no order against respondent authorizing fine and penalty. The Deputy Commissioner, while adjudicating the claim for refund, in Annexure A order dated 17.09.2015 noted that Section 27 of the Customs Act does not deal with refund of redemption fine and penalty, and also not barred by the limitation prescribed therein. Therefore, an application for refund of redemption fine and penalty could be made at any time or any number of times. The respondent, after lapse of 17 years, on the basis of a CESTAT order made on 01.03.1995, is claiming refund of redemption fine and penalty. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed. The Tribunal found that the order dated 14.06.1988 and 13.05.2016 said to have been made levying redemption fine and penalty were set aside and no more in operation. As the orders in original are set aside, there is no occasion for confiscation of goods or redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The authorities, in the case on hand, failed to act in the matter upon remand by the CEGAT. Therefore, unless there is an order levying redemption fine and penalty, the said sums cannot be retained by the Revenue. In other words, the Department cannot retain the redemption fine and penalty amount for any violation of import of subject consignment by the respondent in the absence of an order to that effect. 5. Advocate I Sheela Devi appeari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... refers to Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. According to Advocate for appellant, Section 27 is attracted to the case on hand, the claim for refund could not be made beyond one year from the date on which the amount is paid or as is applicable while reading Section 27. The argument on limitation presupposes that Section 27 is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Section 27 deals with refund of duty paid, and reads thus: "27. Claim for refund of duty.-- [(1) Any person claiming refund of any duty or interest, -- (a) paid by him; or (b) borne by him, may make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' means duty leviable under the Act. Section 27, in our considered view, does not Customs Appeal No.3/2018 deal with a claim for redemption fine and penalty. The said contention is unsustainable and accordingly rejected. 7.2 The next argument is that the Tribunal through orders dated 08.12.1988 and 01.03.1995 did not direct refund of redemption fine and penalty to the respondent. This argument is considered by the Tribunal and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the order under appeal are that the authorities are under obligation to pass fresh order upon remand by the CESTAT. The authorities did not pass order levying redemption fine/penalty. Had it been a case where the redemption fine and penalty are set aside, different consid....