2003 (10) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of unaccounted goods from the premises of two appellants.
2. Imposition of penalties and redemption fines.
3. Ownership of seized goods and liability for fines between the two appellants.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two appellants, M/s. Shyam Antenna and M/s. Shyam Communication Systems Ltd., appealing against a common Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi-1 regarding the confiscation of unaccounted goods valued at Rs. 3,76,700/- and Rs. 2,99,744/- from their respective premises. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of the seized goods under Rule 173Q, proposing redemption fines and penalties. The absence of proper record-keeping and unaccounted goods led to the imposition of penalties and confiscation.

2. In the appeal of M/s. Shyam Antenna, it was argued that the absence of the person in charge of Central Excise Records Keeping was the reason for the lapse in maintaining records. However, the tribunal noted that the absence of the concerned clerk was a weak defense. The appellants failed to prove that the goods were not required to be entered in the relevant registers. The tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties and confiscation as justified under Rule 173Q(1)(b).

3. Regarding the appeal of M/s. Shyam Communication Systems Ltd., the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, stating that since the goods seized from their premises belonged to M/s. Shyam Antenna, the second appellant had no locus standi in the case. However, the tribunal found merit in the pleas of M/s. Shyam Communication Systems and allowed their appeal by remanding the case for de novo consideration. The tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide an opportunity for both appellants to present their case and follow the principles of natural justice.

4. Ultimately, the tribunal rejected the appeal of M/s. Shyam Antenna while allowing the appeal of M/s. Shyam Communication Systems Ltd. for a de novo remand. The liabilities on M/s. Shyam Antenna were confined to the seizure from their premises, while fresh proceedings were ordered for the seizure at the premises of M/s. Shyam Communication Systems Ltd. The case was disposed of accordingly, addressing the issues of confiscation, penalties, and ownership of seized goods between the two appellants.