2004 (7) TMI 476 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Revenue's challenge to order-in-original regarding confiscation of goods and penalties.

The judgment involves an appeal where the Revenue contested a part of the impugned order that reversed the order-in-original related to the confiscation of goods intercepted in two trucks and the imposition of penalties on the respondents. The Revenue argued that the confiscation and penalties should not have been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the statements of the truck driver and cleaner, as the goods found did not match the descriptions in the gate passes. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order.

The learned JDR representing the Revenue contended that the confiscation of goods and penalties should not have been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the statements of the truck driver and cleaner regarding the removal of goods prior to interception using the same gate passes. The JDR highlighted that the goods found in the trucks did not correspond to the descriptions in the gate passes and argued for setting aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the correctness of the impugned order.

Upon reviewing the record, it was found that on a specific date, the Central Excise Officers intercepted two trucks transporting goods from the factory of the respondents. The goods were seized based on statements from the truck driver and cleaner indicating prior transportation of goods using the same gate passes. However, there was no evidence collected during the investigation to corroborate their statements. The goods found in the trucks at interception were covered by duly duty paid gate passes. The argument that the goods did not match the descriptions in the gate passes lacked evidence for corroboration, and no duty had been confirmed against the respondents for the goods. The duty demand against the respondents for allegedly short goods in the factory was dropped by the adjudicating authority, unchallenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals).

The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence beyond the statements of the truck driver and cleaner to prove the goods were removed twice by the respondents using the gate passes. The alleged purchasers of the goods were not contacted or questioned by the officers, and thus, their statements were rightly disregarded by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the absence of corroborative evidence. As the goods in the trucks were duly duty paid and covered by valid gate passes, the confiscation and penalties were rightfully set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, finding no illegality in the decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.