JUDGMENT
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
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.
4. The original payment of redemption fine by late Shri Ram Lal Sharma is not at ail in dispute. That the legal heirs of Shri R,L. Sharma were entitled to refund of that amount on the strength of the order of unconditional release of the goods passed by the Collector is also an undisputed fact. The legal heirs, Shri S S. Sharma and Smt. Sashibai Paliwal produced succession certificate and applied for refund of their respective shares of Rs. 37,500 and Rs. 12,500 of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000. The authenticity of the succession certificate is also not in dispute. It was after taking evidence with regard to the deposit of Rs. 50,000 by late Shri R.L Sharma that the Competent Court issued the succession certificate to his son and daughter. The Assistant Commissioner ought to have acted upon the succession certificate and refunded the amounts to the claimants without insisting on any further evidence of payment of the redemption fine. However, it appears that only Dr. S.S. Sharma preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Smt, Sashibai Paliwal did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals), nonetheless, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner in its entirety, directing refund of the amounts of Rs. 37,500 and Rs. 12,500 to the claimants. As rightly submitted by the learned DR, it was not open to the lower appellate authority to direct any refund to Smt. Sashibai Paliwal as against whom the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner has become final and binding. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of the lower appellate authority to the extent it directed refund of Rs. 12,500 to Smt. Sashibai Paliwal. In so far as its direction for refund of Rs. 37,500 to Dr. S.S. Sharma, respondent herein, is concerned, the order of the lower appellate authority is sustained. The appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed.