2004 (3) TMI 685 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and duty payable against the appellants.
2. Claim of appellants not being the manufacturers of the goods.
3. Notice for confiscation not served on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order confirming the confiscation of seized goods and duty payable. The appellants argued that they were not the manufacturers of the goods and no notice for confiscation was served on them. The Department seized SS flats from the appellants' premises, and upon issuing a show cause notice, the duty demand was raised from the manufacturer as the manufacturer's name was unknown. The goods were proposed to be confiscated under Rule 173Q, and a penalty was also imposed on the appellants. The adjudicating authority allowed redemption of the goods on payment of a fine, confirmed the duty demand, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty against the appellants, considering them not to be the manufacturers.

2. The Counsel contended that confiscation under Rule 173Q could not be done as the appellants were not the manufacturers and no notice was served. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the goods were excisable goods recovered from the appellants' premises. Even though the appellants did not claim ownership, their representative offered to pay the duty and take responsibility if the goods were unclaimed by another company. As the other company did not claim the goods, the appellants were bound by their representative's statement. The Tribunal found the confiscation justified as the appellants failed to explain how they acquired the goods. The voluntary payment of duty without objection supported the appellants' claim that no duty was confirmable against them. The show cause notice proposing confiscation was considered sufficient notice.

3. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appellants' appeal. It found no illegality in the order, concluding that the confiscation under Rule 173Q was justified given the circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants' actions and the show cause notice served as valid grounds for the confiscation, despite the appellants not being the manufacturers of the goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.