ORDER
M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 12-7-04 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim to the respondents.
2. Considered the submissions made at length by both the sides and perused the records. I find that in this case, there was a confiscation of the goods excess found in the factory premises of the respondents. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods but did not indicate a specific amount in lieu of redemption fine. He only appropriated the bank guarantee executed by the respondents against un-quantified redemption fine. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty on the respondent. The respondent went in KVSS Scheme in respect of penalty before the competent authority and got the relief. It is the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that if the amount of redemption fine would have been quantified by the adjudicating authority, he would have gone for KVSS Scheme that amount also.
3. I find strong force in the submissions made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent inasmuch as, that it is a settled law that unless amount is quantified against a specific head, the recovery of the same is improper. In this case, I find that the appropriation of the bank guarantee executed by the respondents is not according to law. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly allowed the refund appropriated by the authority against un-quantified amount. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 25-7-06).