2007 (3) TMI 451 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of capital goods between two appellants.
2. Allegations of evasion of duty and imposition of penalties.
3. Controversy over the value of capital goods and payment of duty.
4. Discharge of duty liability and intention to evade duty.

Issue 1: Transfer of capital goods between two appellants
The appellants argued that they transferred certain capital goods from one factory to another for productive use without any intention to evade duty. They emphasized that the duty was paid voluntarily based on the value declared by them, which was accepted by the authorities. The appellants contended that there was no mens rea or wilful intention to evade duty, and penalties imposed on them were unjustified.

Issue 2: Allegations of evasion of duty and imposition of penalties
The Revenue acknowledged that the declared value of machinery was acceptable but highlighted a contravention of Excise Law and Procedure. However, it was noted that there was no evidence of fraudulent conduct or collusion by the appellants to take advantage of the capital goods. The lower appellate authority had already considered the matter leniently, leading to the imposition of penalties. The appellants argued that there was no fraud or misconduct on their part, and the penalties were unwarranted.

Issue 3: Controversy over the value of capital goods and payment of duty
Both sides agreed that the valuation of machinery declared by the appellants was acceptable. The record did not demonstrate any contumacious conduct or ulterior motive behind the transfer of machinery between the factories. It was established that the duty demand was promptly discharged before the goods were removed, and an inspection did not reveal any wrongdoing on the part of the appellants.

Issue 4: Discharge of duty liability and intention to evade duty
The Commissioner acknowledged a controversy over the value of capital goods but ultimately favored the appellants' voluntary disclosure. As the duty liability was discharged and the transfer aimed at economic exploitation of idle machinery, it was concluded that no mischief was intended, and there was no evidence of an intention to evade duty. Therefore, the appellate order was modified to waive the penalties and redemption fine imposed on both appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellants, emphasizing their good faith in transferring capital goods for productive use and their prompt payment of duty. The decision highlighted the absence of any fraudulent intent or evasion of duty, leading to the modification of the penalties imposed by the lower authorities.