2005 (6) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Contest of correctness of impugned order regarding confiscation of goods and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The appeal contested the correctness of the impugned order, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants. The appellants were dealing with Aromatic Chemicals, and a consignment of Sandal Wood Oil was in question. The raid conducted on the consignment revealed discrepancies in the nature of the goods. Samples were tested at I.I.T., Kanpur, with conflicting reports initially indicating Sandal Wood Oil and later contaminated oil. The officer's justification for the re-testing was accepted, and the second report was deemed valid. The Revenue did not pursue testing from an independent laboratory, leading to the acceptance of the second report. The invoices described the goods as Aromatic Chemical, not Sandal Wood Oil.

The goods were received under an invoice from a firm in Maharashtra, which had previously cleared goods for the appellants. Allegations of the firm being fictitious were refuted, as no duty demand was raised against them. The duty demand in the show cause notice was general and not specific to the manufacturer. Legally, duty demands cannot be raised against the appellants as they were not the manufacturers or traders but recipients under the invoice. Therefore, the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties were deemed legally incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law.