2003 (3) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure and confiscation of goods.
2. Duty evasion and clandestine removal of goods.
3. Valuation of goods for duty calculation.
4. Liability of various parties for penalties and fines.
5. Legality of provisional release and bond execution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seizure and Confiscation of Goods:
The goods were seized based on information received about non-duty paid goods being transported. The driver failed to produce documents evidencing payment of duty. The goods were identified as products of DTPPL and were seized due to the lack of duty payment evidence. The belief entertained by the seizing officer was not challenged, leading to the conclusion that the seizure was justified.

2. Duty Evasion and Clandestine Removal of Goods:
The goods were claimed by M/s. Rafiq Brothers, but discrepancies in their statements and the statements of their dealers led to the conclusion that the goods were not duty-paid. The packing slips indicated that the goods were packed in January 1995, contradicting the invoices from October to December 1994. The statements of the packing supervisor were not challenged, reinforcing the conclusion of clandestine removal without duty payment.

3. Valuation of Goods for Duty Calculation:
The Commissioner adopted a value of Rs. 14,98,500/- for the goods, resulting in a duty demand of Rs. 7,49,250/-. The Revenue argued that the assessable value should include the duty element, leading to a higher duty demand of Rs. 11,23,875/-. The Tribunal found that the valuation and duty calculation needed to be re-determined in line with the decision in Srichakra Tyres and Rule 9A.

4. Liability of Various Parties for Penalties and Fines:
- M/s. DTPPL: Confirmed duty demand and penalty of Rs. 8 lakhs.
- M/s. Rafiq Brothers: Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.
- Shri Vishnu Das Baheti (Vishnu Agencies): Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.
- Shri M. Amarnath (Balaji Agencies): Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.
- Shri Kudhrathulla (Lorry Owner/Driver): The conscious knowledge of transporting non-duty paid goods was not established, leading to the allowance of his appeal and removal of penalties and fines on him.

5. Legality of Provisional Release and Bond Execution:
M/s. DTPPL accepted the provisional release of the goods and executed a bond, indicating ownership. This acceptance reinforced the conclusion that the goods were non-duty paid and clandestinely removed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the case for re-determination of the value and duty payable, and the liability of M/s. Rafiq Brothers, M/s. Vishnu Agencies, M/s. Balaji Agencies, and M/s. DTPPL. The appeal of Shri Kudhrathulla was allowed, and the appeals of the Revenue and other parties were disposed of as remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings.