2006 (8) TMI 408 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order confirming demand of duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods and truck.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against the order-in-appeal that upheld the order-in-original confirming the demand of duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods and truck. The Preventive Officers of Central Excise intercepted a vehicle loaded with goods, and upon investigation, issued a show cause notice to the appellants. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, penalties, and confiscation, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.

The appellant argued that the seizure of goods was incorrect as no valid seizure or statements of the drivers were recorded. The appellant relied on judgments to support the argument that without valid seizure or statements, the entire issue is legally flawed. On the other hand, the Department contended that the seized goods bore markings of the appellant's factory, and the drivers confirmed loading from the said factory.

Upon considering the submissions and perusing the records, it was noted that the Panchnama of seizure was drawn and signed by the Inspector of Central Excise, invoking the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. However, the statements of the drivers were not recorded before a Gazetted Officer, as required by law. These statements were merely signed letters and not valid confessions. The revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence to prove that goods were removed from the factory without duty payment.

The judgment referred to a previous case where statements not recorded by a Gazetted Officer were held inadmissible as evidence. Following this precedent, the Tribunal found that the impugned orders were flawed and set them aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures, especially regarding the recording of statements as evidence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of proper legal procedures and evidence in matters of duty demand, penalties, and confiscation. The judgment underscored the significance of following legal requirements to ensure the validity of actions taken by authorities in such cases.