1984 (9) TMI 285 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Central Excise Collector for removal of goods without payment of duty.
2. Contravention of Central Excise Rules and imposition of penalty.
3. Defense arguments of appellant regarding absence of intention to evade duty.
4. Reference to relevant case laws by the appellant.
5. Response of the Senior Departmental Representative (S.D.R.).
6. Decision of the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT Calcutta and quashing of penalties.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by a company against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise for the removal of goods without payment of duty. The company was found to have removed engineering goods without paying Central Excise duty, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent penalties.

2. The appellant admitted to procedural lapses due to the absence of a dealing clerk but argued that there was no intention to evade duty. The Additional Collector observed that while there was no motive to evade duty, the company was careless in record-keeping. The goods were confiscated, and a fine was imposed. The appellant challenged this order before the CEGAT Calcutta.

3. The appellant's consultant cited various case laws to support their defense, emphasizing that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or when there is a genuine belief in compliance. They argued for the cancellation of penalties and redemption fines based on these precedents.

4. The Senior Departmental Representative (S.D.R.) acknowledged the absence of intent to evade duty but defended the imposition of penalties under the Central Excise Rules for contraventions. The S.D.R. referred to specific rules and the correctness of the Additional Collector's decision.

5. The consultant reiterated their plea for the appeal's acceptance, emphasizing the lack of intention to evade duty by the appellant.

6. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant case laws, concluded that there was no intent to evade duty by the appellant. The tribunal quashed the penalties and directed the Revenue to refund the fines. A warning was issued to the appellant to be cautious in the future to avoid similar lapses.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues, arguments, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT Calcutta in the case involving the removal of goods without payment of duty and the imposition of penalties under the Central Excise Rules.