2003 (3) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation - Storage of excisable goods outside licenced premises - Redemption fine - Quantum - Parameters - Penalty - Imposition of - Demand not confirmed

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under Central Excise Rules.
2. Allegations of contravention of various provisions of Central Excise Rules.
3. Liability of individuals involved in the case for penalties.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confiscation of plastic crates and a truck due to alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules by the appellant, a manufacturing unit. The goods were seized without payment of duty, leading to a demand for duty amounting to Rs. 38,50,306/-. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of seized crates and imposed penalties on the appellant and individuals associated with the unit.

2. The appellant claimed that the goods were stored in an adjacent premises due to space constraints in their licensed premises after a fire incident. They argued that necessary entries were made in the account books and that there was no intention to evade duty. However, the Commissioner found the appellant in violation of rules related to storage and clearance of goods outside licensed premises, leading to confiscation and penalties.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions governing the storage and clearance of excisable goods, emphasizing the requirement of proper accounting and permission for storage outside licensed premises. The Tribunal reduced the quantum of fine and penalties imposed, considering the circumstances and intent of the appellant. The penalties on the Director were set aside, citing lack of involvement in day-to-day operations, while the penalty on the General Manager was reduced based on the severity of the offense.

4. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following legal requirements and obtaining necessary permissions for storage and clearance of goods to avoid penalties and confiscation. The judgment clarified the liability of individuals based on their roles and actions in the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal modified the orders, setting aside some confiscations, reducing fines and penalties, and upholding others based on the gravity of the offenses and individual responsibilities.