2004 (3) TMI 591 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Contesting confirmation of duty, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty.
2. Non-production of duty paying documents by the transport company.
3. Seizure of goods and payment of duty.
4. Imposition of penalty and redemption fine.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Contesting confirmation of duty, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty
The Counsel for the Appellant contested the confirmation of duty, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty. It was argued that the goods were cleared on payment of duty, and the non-production of duty paying documents by the transport company should not be the basis for confirming duty against the Appellants. Additionally, it was contended that since duty was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, neither redemption fine nor penalty should be imposed.

Issue 2: Non-production of duty paying documents by the transport company
The Counsel argued that 50 bags of gutka seized from the tempo were duty paid and cleared under an invoice. However, the JDR contended that the invoice for these bags was issued after interception. Regarding the remaining 200 bags seized from the transport company premises, no duty paying documents were produced. This lack of documentation indicated that these goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty.

Issue 3: Seizure of goods and payment of duty
The Tribunal noted that no invoice was produced at the time of seizure of 50 bags from the tempo. The Appellants later presented an invoice, but it was not accepted as valid by the authorities. As for the 200 bags seized from the transport company premises, no duty paying documents were provided. The Appellants had already paid the entire duty amount, which was appropriated by the authorities.

Issue 4: Imposition of penalty and redemption fine
Despite the duty payment before the show cause notice, the Tribunal upheld the seizure and confiscation of goods, along with the imposition of penalty. However, considering the circumstances and the early payment of duty, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The redemption fine was not reduced. The Department was authorized to recover the penalty and redemption fine from the security furnished by the Appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order with modifications to the penalty amount, reducing it to Rs. 50,000. The redemption fine remained unchanged. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.