2002 (8) TMI 685 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of conveyance and goods - Clandestine removal - Demand - House mark vis-a-vis Trade mark

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty and imposition of penalties on the appellants.
2. Allegations of clandestine removal of excisable goods without payment of duty.
3. Confiscation of seized goods and penalties imposed on the appellants.
4. Denial of clandestine removal by the appellants and lack of evidence.
5. Legal basis for confiscation of goods and discrepancies in the investigation.
6. Allegations of clearing goods without payment of duty to dealers/selling agents.
7. Legal interpretation of evidence and charges of clandestine removal.
8. Branding of products and duty implications.
9. Set aside of the Commissioner's order and allowance of appeals.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals against an order confirming duty and penalties on the appellants. The Commissioner had imposed penalties and confirmed duty demand based on allegations of clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty.

2. The appellants, a company manufacturing food products, were accused of clandestinely removing goods without duty payment. The investigation involved seizures of goods from various premises, leading to duty demands and penalties on the appellants.

3. The appellants contested the show cause notice, denying clandestine removal and challenging the confiscation of seized goods. The Commissioner upheld duty demands, penalties, and confiscations, prompting the appeals.

4. The appellants argued the lack of tangible evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal. They refuted claims of clearing goods without duty payment and contested the basis of the Commissioner's order.

5. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the investigation and the legal basis for confiscating goods. It highlighted the need for clear evidence before confiscation and questioned the Commissioner's decision in this regard.

6. The case also involved allegations of clearing goods without duty payment to dealers and selling agents. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented and the lack of proof supporting the allegations.

7. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement for the Department to establish charges of clandestine removal with concrete evidence. It referenced legal precedents emphasizing the need for tangible proof in such cases.

8. The issue of branding of products and duty implications was also addressed. The Tribunal analyzed the branding of goods by the company and the duty implications associated with branded products.

9. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order entirely, allowing the appeals of the appellants with consequential relief as per the law. The decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations and discrepancies in the investigation.