2004 (1) TMI 537 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue challenging order allowing appeal by giving benefit of doubt, imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of C.E. Rules, 1944 on transport company for accepting goods without proper documents, lack of evidence regarding transporter's knowledge of non-duty paid goods, reliance on previous judgments to support arguments.

In this case, the Revenue challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) which allowed the appeal filed by the transport company, giving them the benefit of doubt. The original authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,500 on the transport company under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The case revolved around the transport company, engaged in the transport of goods, being penalized for accepting goods for transportation without proper documents such as lorry way bills, invoices, or gate passes. The Divisional Preventive officers visited the company's office, found 10 bundles of cotton yarn, and issued a show cause notice proposing a penalty under Rule 209A. The original authority confirmed the duty demand on the entity that entrusted the goods to the transporter and imposed penalties and confiscation.

The Revenue, represented by Shri A. Jayachandran, argued that the transport company abetted the offense by accepting goods without proper documentation, thus justifying the penalty under Rule 209A. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Parameswaran, representing the transport company, contended that there was no evidence proving the transporter's knowledge of the goods being non-duty paid. He highlighted that the transporter did not receive the goods directly from the owner's premises, had a clean record, and cited a previous judgment where a similar penalty on a transporter was set aside. He requested the appeal to be rejected.

After considering both arguments, the judge noted that the goods were seized from the transporter's premises, and a penalty of Rs. 7,500 was imposed under Rule 209A for allegedly accepting non-duty paid goods without proper documentation. However, the judge observed that there was no evidence presented by the Revenue proving the transporter's knowledge of the goods being non-duty paid. Referring to previous judgments, the judge emphasized the importance of establishing mens rea before applying Rule 209A. Citing a specific case where a penalty on a transporter was set aside under similar circumstances, the judge upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to give the benefit of doubt to the transporter, considering the small amount involved. Consequently, the judge rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision.