2004 (6) TMI 524 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Questioning correctness of order-in-appeal affirming confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and personal penalty.
- Contention regarding duty demand, excess or shortage of finished goods, and legality of confiscation and penalty.
- Verification of stock after seizure, evasion of duty, and imposition of penalty.
- Seizure of goods, truck interception, factory premises, and invoice production.
- Lack of duty demand, discrepancy in statutory record, and removal of goods on payment of duty.
- Proposal for penalty and confiscation without unaccounted goods or shortage found.
- Absence of duty demand, proper invoice clearance, and legal basis for confiscation and penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the appellants challenging the correctness of the order-in-appeal that affirmed the confiscation of seized goods, imposition of a redemption fine, and a personal penalty. The appellants argued that since no duty demand was confirmed and no discrepancies were found in the factory premises regarding the finished goods, the order of confiscation and penalty could not be legally sustained without evidence of duty evasion on the seized goods. The learned JDR supported the impugned order, leading to a detailed examination by the Tribunal.

Upon reviewing the facts, it was revealed that a truck carrying cotton yarn was intercepted, leading to the seizure of goods believed to have been cleared without duty payment by the appellants' mill. However, subsequent investigations at the factory premises of the appellants did not uncover any unaccounted or excess goods, and the appellants provided evidence of proper invoice clearance and duty payment. Surprisingly, no duty demand was raised in the show cause notice, which only proposed penalty and confiscation without concrete evidence of duty evasion or discrepancies in the goods' removal.

Given the lack of duty demand, absence of unaccounted goods, and the proper invoice clearance demonstrated by the appellants, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be legally sustained. Consequently, the order of confiscation and penalty was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was accepted with any consequential relief permissible under the law. This decision was based on the fundamental principle that confiscation and penalty should have a legal basis supported by evidence of duty evasion, which was lacking in this case.