2006 (3) TMI 576 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of seized goods and penalty imposition upheld by Order-in-Appeal challenged in appeal.

Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Seized Goods and Penalty Imposition:
- The appellant, a registered dealer dealing in excisable goods, had goods seized during a search by DGAE officers for not being accounted in RG 23D Register.
- Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the appellate authority.
- The main contention was whether non-accounting of goods in the RG 23D Register could be the sole reason for confiscation.
- The Tribunal noted that as a dealer, the appellant might have purchased the goods for resale, and not being duty paid goods did not necessarily lead to confiscation.
- The Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant could prove with credible evidence that the seized goods were legally purchased, non-excisable, and properly recorded in private records, they should not be seizable.

2. Consideration of Submissions by Commissioner (Appeals):
- The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not fully consider the appellant's submissions regarding the non-excisable nature of the confiscated goods.
- It was deemed essential for justice that the appellant's claim be thoroughly examined along with the evidence presented.

3. Decision and Remand:
- The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to allow the appellant a personal hearing and an opportunity to produce evidence supporting their claim.
- The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the appellate authority for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, in this judgment, addressed the issue of confiscation of seized goods and penalty imposition on a registered dealer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering whether non-accounting in the RG 23D Register could be the sole basis for confiscation and highlighted the need for credible evidence to prove the legality and non-excisable nature of the seized goods. The decision to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh examination underscored the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring a just and thorough consideration of the appellant's submissions and evidence.