ORDER
K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides.
2. In this case the appellants made a payment of Rs. 1 lakh as redemption fine for redeeming the vehicle, which was confiscated. Thereafter, the appellants succeeded in their appeal filed before the tribunal and were consequently entitled to refund of the said amount of redemption fine. However, the department instead of suo-motto grating the refund of the said amount, held the amount with them. The appellants, thereafter took the law in their own hand and took credit of Rs. 1 lakh in their PLA by referring to the TRG challan on the basis of which the amount of Rs. 1 lakh UK was paid towards redemption fine. The departmental authorities objected to this suo motto utilisation of the said TR-6, challan relating to the payment of redemption fine, for the purpose of taking credit in the PLA. The credit of the said amount was treated as non-existent and the despatches utilising the said credit were accordingly treated as removals without payment of duty.
3. I note that, since the appellant had succeeded in obtaining a favourable order through which the confiscation of the motor vehicle was set aside, the department ought to have refunded the said amount of Rs. 1 lakh, which was deposited through TR-6 challan.
4. In the entire proceedings, I find that the approach of the lower authorities is highly deplorable to say the least. The authorities below were bound to follow the orders of the appellate authorities and ought to have sanctioned the amount of Rs. 1 lakh, which accrued to the appellants through the favourable orders. However, they did not implement the order and when the appellants took suo moto credit of the said amount in the PLA, objections have been raised, saying that there is no authorisation from the competent authority to take such credit.
5. The denial of credit of the said amount of Rs. 1 lakh in the PLA is totally unsustainable. If the departmental authorities felt that what the appellants did was wrong, it is also seen that, what departmental authorities did was also not correct. In the first place, the authorities should have suo-motto granted refund of redemption fine soon after the appellants succeeded before the appellate authority. By holding on to the refund claim and their objecting to the suo moto credit, amounts to rubbing salt on the injury. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
(Pronounced in Court)