JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the appellate Tribunal [ 2008 (226) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal)], which held that redemption fine could be imposed only in respect of goods seized but not held liable for confiscation. The Commissioner had imposed redemption fine of Rs.24,00,000.00 on the quantity of 19520.36 sq.mts. of vitrified tiles under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, for short, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". By its order dated 30-7-2007 it was held that the said goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(l) of the Act by the original adjudicating authority, though the entire goods were not available with the Department. The Tribunal set aside the aforesaid order holding that redemption fine could be imposed only in respect of 11094.60 sq.mtrs. of tiles, which were actually seized and provisionally released. No redemption find could be imposed in respect of tiles, which not at all seized, but held liable for confiscation. Therefore the order imposing redemption fine of Rs.24,00,000.00 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for imposing redemption fine only in respect of 11094.60 sq.mtrs. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. In order to levy redemption fine, two condition are to be satisfied : (i) the goods should have been seized, (ii) the goods should be liable for confiscation. Admittedly, 19520.36 sq.mts. of vitrified tiles were not seized, much less released to the assessee provisionally. Only an extent of 11094.60 sq.mts of vitrified tiles were seized, it was confiscated and on payment of redemption fine, it was provisionally released. When the remaining 8425.76 Sq.Mts was not at all available and it was not seized, the question of imposition of redemption fine on such goods did not arise. When the authorities imposed redemption fine on the ground that the said goods are liable for confiscation without verifying as to the existence of the goods and the seizure of the goods, the imposition of redemption fine was illegal. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order which is strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law framed in this case are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No merit. Dismissed.