COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS & CENTRAL Vs. SITA SARAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXAMINED the records and heard the learned DR. There is no representation for the respondent in spite of notice.

(2.) SHRI Sita Saran Sharma, the respondent herein, and his sister Smt. Shashibai Paliwal are legal heirs of their father late Shri Ram Lal Sharma. Certain quantities of gold ornaments had been seized from Ram Lal Sharma and confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold Control Act in the year 1975 on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. The then collector had allowed redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000. Shri R.L. Sharma preferred appeal to the Gold Control Administrator who set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter to the lower authority for fresh adjudication. The Collector who re -adjudicated the matter allowed unconditional release of the goods. This order was passed in November 1982 but Shri R.L. Sharma was no more. He had passed away as early as in March 1977. Later on, in 1996, his son Dr. S.S. Sharma and daughter Smt. Shashibai Paliwal filed separate refund claims for refund of Rs. 37,500 and Rs. 12,500 respectively which were their shares of the amount of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000 under a succession certificate issued by the competent Court in 1994. The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the original TR -6 challan evidencing payment of the redemption fine was not produced. Against the decision of the Assistant Commissioner, Dr. S.S. Sharma preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter set aside the order of the lower authority and held that Dr. S.S. Sharma and Smt. Sashibai Pariwal were entitled to refund of their respective shares of the R.F. amount. The Revenue is now in appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) TWO main grounds have been raised in this appeal. One of these grounds is to the effect that nothing other than the original TR -6 challan was acceptable as proof of payment of fine of Rs. 50,000 and therefore the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was correct. The second ground is that the order of the Assistant Commissioner had become final and binding against Smt. S.B. Paliwa! who had not preferred any appeal against that order. Therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the Order -in -Original in its entirety. The learned DR reiterates the grounds of appeal and particularly stresses the second ground.