9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (9) TMI 611 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Confiscation of unaccounted goods provisionally released during adjudication proceedings. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the confiscation of unaccounted goods released provisionally to the respondents during adjudication proceedings. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty but did not order confiscation as the goods were not available. However, the appellate judge referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Weston Components Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, which stated that even if the seized goods were provisionally released, confiscation could still be ordered during adjudication. The judge found the reasoning of the authorities below legally untenable based on this precedent. The consultant for the respondents cited the case of Friends Wire Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh, arguing that confiscation could not be ordered as the unaccounted goods were not finished goods. However, the judge disagreed, noting that the goods were indeed fully finished and a penalty had been imposed accordingly. The judge distinguished this case from Friends Wire Industries where confiscation was not upheld due to the goods not reaching the finishing stage. Additionally, the judge referenced Flex Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, which held that non-accountal of goods without intent to evade duty did not warrant confiscation. However, the judge emphasized the precedence set by the Bombay High Court in Kirloskar Brothers, which allowed confiscation even without mens rea for non-accountal of goods. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order as the authorities had overlooked the precedents set by the Apex Court and the Bombay High Court. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to determine the confiscation of goods and the payment of redemption fine by the respondents. The penalty imposed on the respondents remained unchanged as it was not challenged. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the adjudicating authorities were directed to make a decision after hearing both parties.
|
