1985 (2) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order imposing penalty under Central Excise Rules.
2. Alleged illegal manufacturing and clearance of biris without duty payment.
3. Validity of statements recorded from appellant and others.
4. Calculation of total quantum of seized biris.
5. Allegations of coercion and threat in obtaining statements.
6. Validity of mahazar and search/seizure irregularities.
7. Imposition and reduction of penalties.
8. Appropriation of security amount for confiscated biris.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order imposing penalties on the appellant under various Central Excise Rules. The penalties included a total penalty of Rs. 4,500 and duty demand of Rs. 21,450.27. The appellant's appeal was transferred to the Tribunal from the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

2. The case involved the illegal manufacturing and clearance of unbranded biris without payment of duty. The appellant was implicated based on the seizure of unaccounted biris and statements from individuals, including the appellant himself, confirming his involvement in the manufacturing process.

3. The validity of the statements recorded from the appellant and others was challenged, with the appellant claiming they were obtained under coercion and threat. The Tribunal found the statements to be voluntary and true, rejecting the appellant's argument of coercion due to the absence of immediate retractions.

4. The appellant disputed the calculation of the total quantum of seized biris, alleging errors in the computation. The Tribunal found no substance in this claim, citing evidence from account books supporting the calculation method used by the authorities.

5. Allegations of coercion and threat in obtaining statements were refuted by the Tribunal, which deemed the statements voluntary and reliable. The lack of immediate retractions and the absence of substantial evidence supporting coercion led to the rejection of this defense.

6. The validity of the mahazar and search/seizure irregularities was challenged by the appellant. The Tribunal held that any irregularity in the conduct of a search or seizure does not invalidate the subsequent recovery of goods, affirming the legality of the impugned order.

7. Considering the appellant's background and circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the imposed penalties under different Central Excise Rules. The penalties were reduced significantly, taking into account the appellant's status as an illiterate rustic villager with no prior offenses under the Excise Law.

8. The Tribunal addressed the appropriation of Rs. 2,000 from the security amount for the confiscated biris. It held that this part of the order was not appealable, as it pertained to administrative actions related to the bond executed by the appellant for the provisional release of the confiscated goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with modifications in the penalty amounts, reducing them significantly based on the appellant's circumstances. The decision highlighted the importance of voluntary statements, upheld the legality of the search and seizure actions, and clarified the administrative nature of security appropriation.