9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1461 - AT - CustomsRejection of Compounding Application - rejection of application on the ground that the appellants have not paid the required redemption fine as imposed in the OIO - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in a set of cases in SHIVAM DEVELOPMENT TRUST VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2016 (6) TMI 954 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , held that since there is no clear proposal in the SCN on imposition of redemption fine and also in the OIO, there is no crystallized demand of redemption fine against each noticee. It was held that the department could not recover fine from the noticee. In this position, there is no demand of redemption fine against the appellants. In this view, there is no case of demand of redemption fine. The rejection of application for non-payment of redemption fine is not correct and legal - Appeal allowed.
Issues: Rejection of compounding applications based on non-payment of redemption fine.
Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Chief Commissioner's order rejecting compounding applications due to non-payment of redemption fine. The appellant argued, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, that there was no liability for redemption fine as the Show Cause Notice (SCN) did not propose its imposition. The appellant contended that since the OIO did not direct the fine to be borne by the noticee, the department could not recover the fine. The appellant emphasized that there was no crystallized demand against them, thus no question of redemption fine. The Revenue, represented by the Ld. Asst. Commissioner, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the compounding applications were rejected solely due to non-deposit of the redemption fine. Referring to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decisions on similar cases from the same SCN and Adjudication Order, the Tribunal observed that without a clear proposal for redemption fine in the SCN and OIO, there was no crystallized demand against each noticee. Consequently, the department could not recover the fine from the noticee. Therefore, the rejection of the compounding application based on non-payment of redemption fine was deemed incorrect and illegal. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The Chief Commissioner (Competent Authority) was directed to reconsider the compounding application within three months from the date of the order and issue a fresh decision.
|
