2014 (8) TMI 909 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Adjudicating authority dropped redemption fine demand - Held that - Bench had remanded the matter aback in respect of the appellants as indicated in original proceedings to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue. It is also noticed that M/s Agro Canners never filed an appeal against the confirmation of demands of customs duty or against the amount of redemption fine imposed in the original proceedings. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority in this denevo proceedings in respect of other notices and appellants could not have set aside the redemption fine which was imposed on the goods in the original proceedings. - The impugned order is set aside which has set aside redemption fine on the respondent in original proceedings - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-original dated 31.7.2009.
2. Compliance with CESTAT orders.
3. Adjudication of duty demand and penalties.
4. Commissioner's readjudication errors.
5. Finality of certain points.
6. Redemption fine imposition.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-original dated 31.7.2009. Despite the respondent's absence and non-filing of an adjournment application, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the appeal due to the matter's age.

2. The Revenue challenged the Order-in-original, stating it did not conform to the CESTAT orders of remand for specific appellants. The CESTAT had remanded the matter for denovo adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, for seven appellants. Notably, no appeal was filed by the main noticee in the case.

3. The Commissioner's readjudication resulted in confirming duty demands and penalties on certain parties, deviating from the CESTAT's remand orders. The Commissioner erred by readjudicating points that had attained finality due to the absence of appeals.

4. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's readjudication was flawed, particularly regarding the redemption fine imposed in the original proceedings. The adjudicating authority could not have set aside the redemption fine imposed on the goods in the original proceedings.

5. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside by the Tribunal, specifically overturning the decision to set aside the redemption fine on the respondent in the original proceedings. The Tribunal found that the redemption fine imposed in the original proceedings should not have been set aside by the adjudicating authority.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent challenged by the Revenue, emphasizing that the redemption fine imposed in the original proceedings should not have been nullified. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the discrepancies in compliance with CESTAT orders, errors in readjudication by the Commissioner, and the Tribunal's decision to uphold the redemption fine imposed in the original proceedings.