TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal. 2. Briefly stated, fact of the case is that Air Intelligence Unit of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai intercepted one passenger on 19.10.2006 carrying 106 numbers of traveller's cheques of the above referred amount and after protracted litigation, redemption fine and personal penalty that was confirmed at Rs.10,01,000/- (total of both) was being debited from the deposited amount of Rs.47,86,334/- plus pre-deposit amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and rest of amount of Rs.41,85,334/- was sanctioned by the Refund Sanctioning Authority namely the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Refund Cell to the Appellant, who established ownership over the seized property (amount). It has approached the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking applicable intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action under Ostensive Authority of law and the said finding having been affirmed the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2018 (360) ELT A257 (S.C.), not granting interest on the refunded amount by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order is unsustainable both in law and facts. 4. Learned Authorised Representative objected the submission and supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that, the amount that was seized and deposited in the account of the Revenue- Department in the State Bank of India, being not a duty that was due for refund, cannot be refunded with interest, for which he sought for no interference of the Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have perused the case record and gone thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t money and even bank account can be defined as property under Section 100 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, prevailed at that time, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the findings of this Tribunal in the said decisions, as has been made in para 8, it reads: "8. As per Article 300A of Constitution of India, also no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. Once confiscation order about impugned currency get set aside. It is clear that currency in question has been appellant's property. He cannot be deprived of the same and is entitled for benefits arising out of said property. Hence interest accrued on the amount in question during the period it was in fixed deposit is the property of the owner of the am....