2005 (6) TMI 313 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty for failure to obtain signature on commercial invoices and AR-4s.
2. Challenge to the imposition of penalty under Rule 14A.
3. Allegation of deliberate omission by the Inspector and subsequent impact on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appeal stemmed from the confirmation of a redemption fine and penalty due to the appellants' failure to secure the signature of the inspector on commercial invoices and AR-4s before exporting goods to China. The Original Authority found no evidence suggesting the goods were intended for domestic trade, noting that the goods were destined for export and had been sealed in the container by the inspector. The appellants argued that the inspector's failure to sign the documents should not result in confiscation and penalty. Citing precedents like Euro Cotspin Ltd., it was contended that the penalty under Rule 14A was not applicable in this case.

2. The Learned DR defended the Order, emphasizing that the appellants should have obtained the inspector's signature before removing the goods for export. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellants only committed a formal breach by not obtaining the inspector's signature, while the inspector's failure to sign the required documents was duly recorded in the Original Order. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had no intention of clearing the goods domestically, and the inspector's deliberate omission put the appellants at risk. As the goods had already been exported, confiscation and penalty were deemed unwarranted since there was no deliberate action by the appellants to warrant such consequences. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, citing relevant judgments like Falcon Air Cargo and Travels (P) Ltd. and Monica Electronics Ltd.

3. In summary, the Tribunal found that the appellants' failure to obtain the inspector's signature on commercial invoices and AR-4s was a formal breach, with the inspector's deliberate omission being the primary cause of the issue. As the goods were meant for export and had already been sealed by the inspector, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed. The judgment highlighted the absence of deliberate wrongdoing by the appellants, emphasizing the inspector's responsibility in the procedural lapse that occurred.