2012 (8) TMI 446 - AT - Customs

Refund claim for Redemption find and penalty - Held that - As Tribunal has ordered for redemption fine and penalty of 10% and 5% of assessed value no room for any interpretation that it does not relate to assessable value of the goods. In case of Sl. No. 7 to 8, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty is more than the quantum of penalty imposed at the initial stage the redemption fine and penalty imposed should be restored to the redemption fine and penalty imposed initially - partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for redemption fine and penalty; Interpretation of Tribunal's order on redemption fine and penalty assessment value.

Analysis:

1. Appeal against rejection of refund claim: The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim for redemption fine and penalty. The lower adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs.1,76,222.92, while sanctioning only Rs.14,75,290. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeal), who rejected the appeal. The appellant contended that the assessed value should be considered for redemption fine and penalty, citing a Tribunal order and a Supreme Court decision in favor of the assessee. The AR argued that assessed value pertains to goods valuation, not redemption fine and penalty. The AR also pointed out that the order had attained finality, and highlighted cases where redemption fine and penalty were reworked based on the Tribunal's order.

2. Interpretation of Tribunal's order: The Tribunal's order dated 28/01/2008 specified redemption fine and penalty at 10% and 5% of the assessed value. The Tribunal clarified that this calculation was not open to interpretation and related to the assessed value of goods. The reworking of redemption fine and penalty was accepted by the appellants for certain items. However, for items where the quantum of redemption fine and penalty exceeded the initial penalty imposed, the Tribunal held that the penalty could not be increased beyond the initial amount. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty for those items were not restored to the initial amounts. The appeal was allowed to that extent, with consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of appeal against refund claim rejection and interpretation of the Tribunal's order on redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal clarified that redemption fine and penalty were to be calculated based on the assessed value of goods, not open to interpretation. The judgment provided relief to the appellant in cases where the penalty exceeded the initial amount imposed, ensuring fairness and adherence to the Tribunal's order.