Page 119 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI v. MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. 653
2. This observation of the Learned Tribunal, the Learned Counsel sub-
mitted, is contrary to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Weston Compo-
nents Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 565 = 2000 (115)
E.L.T. 278 (S.C.).
3. The short order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston
Components Ltd., is quoted below for ready reference :-
“It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that re-
demption fine could not be imposed because the goods were no loger in the
custody of the respondent-authority. It is an admitted fact that the goods
were released to the appellant on an application made by it and on the ap-
pellant executing a bond. Under these circumstances if subsequently it is
found that the import was not valid or that there was any other irregularity
which would entitle the customs authorities to confiscate the said goods,
then the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed
would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemp-
tion fine.
The appeal is dismissed.”
4. The impugned part of paragraph 6 of the order passed by the
Learned Tribunal is also quoted below for ready reference :-
It is also on record that the goods were not physically available for
confiscation. Redemption fine was not to be imposed in lieu of confiscation
of any goods where the goods are not physically available to be redeemed.
The cited case of Weston Components (supra) is distinguishable. In this view
of the matter, we set aside the fine also. Appeal No. C/195/2003 stands
partly allowed.
5. The other points are not pressed by the Learned Counsel for the Ap-
pellant Revenue and the only limited point raised is as aforesaid. We find from
the aforesaid observation of the Learned Tribunal as quoted above that the
Learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the cited case of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Weston Components, referred to above is distinguishable. This
observation written by hand by the Learned Members of the Tribunal, bearing
their initials, appears to be made without giving any reasons and details. The
said observation of the Learned Tribunal, with great respect, is in conflict with
the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components.
6. Therefore, the said observation made by the Learned Tribunal in
paragraph 6 of the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same deserves
to be set aside. However, such setting aside of the observation do not appear to
be affecting the other points on which the relief was granted by the Learned Tri-
bunal in favour of the Assesee.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the present appeal filed by the
Revenue by deleting the afore-quoted observation of the Learned Tribunal, being
in conflict with the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wes-
ton Components Ltd.
8. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  119