2004 (3) TMI 702 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, duty confirmation, and penalties.
2. Sending raw materials and finished goods to an unregistered unit without payment of Central Excise duty.
3. Confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and penalties due to failure to ensure duty payment.
4. Use of private challans instead of prescribed challans under Rule 57F(2).
5. Reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) and appeal for restoration of the original penalty.
6. Merits of the Revenue appeal and the decision to reject it.

Analysis:

1. The appeal from the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order confiscating goods, imposing fines, confirming duty, and penalties against the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner had confiscated goods, imposed redemption fines, confirmed duty, and penalties, leading to the Revenue's appeal seeking restoration of the original order.

2. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing Poly Films and bags, were sending raw materials and finished goods to an unregistered unit without paying Central Excise duty. The unregistered unit, involved in cutting and sealing processes on plastic tubes/sheets and bags, did not follow proper procedures for receipt of inputs under job work, leading to the confiscation of goods worth Rs. 10,38,700 due to duty evasion.

3. In the adjudication proceedings, it was found that the unregistered unit failed to ensure duty payment for the goods received, resulting in the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties on both the respondents and the unregistered unit. The confiscated goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,10,000.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the respondents used private challans instead of the prescribed challans under Rule 57F(2) but found that the content of the private challans contained the required information. As there was no evidence to the contrary position, the discrepancy in the type of challans did not result in unaccounted goods, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

5. The Revenue's appeal only pertained to M/s. Spectrum Packaging, and the findings against other parties were considered final. The appeal also sought the restoration of the original penalty of Rs. 75,000 imposed on the respondents, which was reduced to Rs. 15,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to procedural infractions.

6. The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal lacked merit as there was no evidence of evasion, and all materials sent by the respondents were properly accounted for. Consequently, the reduction in penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and there was no justification for imposing any additional penalty, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

← Previous Next →