2003 (7) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of the impugned Order-in-appeal.
2. Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty.
3. Excessive goods found in the premises.
4. Modification of the order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Disagreement between the learned SDR and the learned Counsel.
6. Confiscation of rejected goods.
7. Attempted loading of goods in a vehicle.
8. Comparison with the case of Media Video Ltd.
9. Upholding of the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The judgment involves the correctness of the impugned Order-in-appeal, where the Revenue contested the modifications made by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the respondents. The proceedings were initiated due to the presence of excessive goods in the respondents' premises, leading to show cause notices for confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the notices, but the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order by reducing the penalty to Rs. 5,000 on the respondents.

The learned SDR argued in favor of upholding the confiscation and penalties, stating that the excess goods warranted such actions. However, the learned Counsel supported the correctness of the impugned order. The judge examined the record and found that the confiscated goods were rejected goods not yet entered into the RG-1 register as they had not reached the finished stage. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the confiscation. Additionally, the attempt to load goods into a vehicle was not proven, and the reduction in penalty was justified based on the respondents' lapse.

The judge referenced the case of Media Video Ltd., where unaccounted video cassettes indicated clandestine removal, leading to the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. However, in the current case, the circumstances differed, and the intention of the respondents did not suggest clandestine removal. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and all appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The judge found no illegality in the discretion exercised by the Commissioner (Appeals) and agreed with the reasoning provided for setting aside the confiscation of goods.