2005 (6) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess goods found in the factory premises.
2. Confirmation of duty demand for goods found at the transporter's premises.
3. Imposition of penalties on individuals.

Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Excess Goods:
The case involved the confiscation of excess printed laminated Film Rolls found in the factory premises of the appellants. The Central Excise officers discovered a significant quantity of goods in excess of the recorded balance, fully packed and ready for dispatch. Production slips for these goods were destroyed, and as they were not entered in the RG-1 register, the goods were seized. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty against the manufacturer and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were in a ready-to-dispatch condition and not merely intermediate goods as claimed by the manufacturer. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that confiscation was justified. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 considering the circumstances.

2. Confirmation of Duty Demand for Goods at Transporter's Premises:
Another issue was the confirmation of duty demand for rolls found at the transporter's premises. The appellant contended that they were not the manufacturers of those goods meant for gutka production. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of evidence linking the seized goods to the appellant's manufacturing activities. No markings or batch numbers indicated their origin, and no supporting documents were found at the appellant's factory. The statements of the transporter's representatives were deemed insufficient evidence. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no justification for confirming the duty demand.

3. Imposition of Penalties on Individuals:
Regarding the penalties imposed on individuals, the Tribunal set aside the personal penalties of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 imposed on Shri Dang and Shri Nitin Mali under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Notably, no personal penalty was imposed on the manufacturing unit itself.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all three appeals in the above terms, addressing each issue thoroughly and ruling in favor of the appellant on the confirmation of duty demand and the imposition of penalties on individuals.