2004 (10) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against release of goods of Indian origin.
2. Appeal by transporter against confiscation of foreign-made goods.

Analysis:
1. Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue appealed against the release of goods of Indian origin. The Commissioner found that no duty demand was quantified or confirmed, indicating that the goods cannot be held as non-duty paid unless proven otherwise. The Revenue contended that the transporter did not provide necessary details, hindering the investigation. However, the Commissioner set aside the confiscation as the onus of proving non-duty paid nature was not discharged. Citing existing case laws, the Commissioner emphasized that goods found in the market are presumed duty paid unless proven otherwise. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as no violation of Central Excise Act or Rules was established.

2. Transporter's Appeal:
The transporter appealed against the confiscation of foreign-made goods. The Commissioner had ordered confiscation based on the belief that the goods were notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. However, the transporter argued that the specific item, Car Stereo, was not listed in the relevant notification. The transporter contended that the confiscation was unsustainable as it was solely based on the notification ground, without any evidence of smuggling. The appeal of the transporter was successful, and the order of confiscation was set aside, leading to the release of the goods and the truck to the transporter.

In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the transporter's appeal succeeded. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving non-duty paid nature for confiscation and the necessity of specific grounds for confiscation under relevant laws. The decision emphasized adherence to legal procedures and the burden of proof in cases of confiscation.