2004 (1) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty on the appellants.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the imposition of a penalty on the appellants, challenging the impugned order-in-appeal. The appellants argued that they never claimed the goods as manufacturer or purchaser, and the goods were not found in their premises, thus contending that no penalty should be imposed on them. On the contrary, the JDR supported the impugned order. The Tribunal found that although some goods were seized from the transporter's premises, the appellants consistently denied any association with the goods. The Tribunal had previously directed the adjudicating authority to consider this plea. However, the adjudicating authority confirmed the penalty without addressing this plea, relying on a letter from the transporter seeking release of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision without considering the appellants' plea. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence linking the appellants to the goods, as they had disowned them and there was no proof of clearance from their premises. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty could be legally imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellants. The decision was made based on the lack of evidence linking the appellants to the seized goods, thereby concluding that no penalty could be imposed on them. The Tribunal emphasized that the letter from the transport company seeking release of the goods did not establish any association between the appellants and the goods. As a result, the appellants were granted consequential relief as permissible under the law following the setting aside of the impugned order.