2010 (6) TMI 391 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of the conveyance - show cause notice was issued for imposition of penalties on the driver and the owner of the truck - no knowledge or intention attributable on the part of the owner of the truck and the driver, his agent, in the clandestine removal of the goods - It was not been shown that the Department has filed any appeal against the order of the original authority in not imposing any penalty on the owner and the deriver of the truck - grounds of appeal also no where disclose any materi attributing knowledge or intention on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle - order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the setting aside the confiscation of the truck calls for no interference

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of goods and penalties.
- Confiscation of truck used for transporting non-duty paid goods.
- Imposition of penalties on the owner and driver of the truck.
- Setting aside of the confiscation of the truck by the Commissioner (Appeals).
- Application of Section 115 of the Customs Act to the matter.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Department was made against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The original authority confirmed the duty demand, imposed penalties on the manufacturing company, and ordered the confiscation of the truck used for transporting non-duty paid goods. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation of the truck, stating lack of evidence showing active involvement of the truck owner in the clandestine activities of the manufacturing unit.

2. The learned SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing that the truck was indeed used for transporting goods clandestinely without proper duty payment. It was highlighted that the driver did not possess necessary documents supporting the payment of duty for the goods being transported.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and referred to Section 115 of the Customs Act, which addresses the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling goods. It was noted that any conveyance used for transporting clandestinely removed goods is liable for confiscation unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance in such activities. The Tribunal pointed out that in this case, the original authority dropped proceedings against the owner and driver of the truck, indicating a lack of knowledge or intention on their part in the clandestine removal of goods.

4. The Tribunal observed that the Department did not appeal against the original authority's decision not to impose penalties on the owner and driver of the truck. It was noted that the grounds of appeal did not provide any material attributing knowledge or intention to the owner or driver. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of the truck was deemed justified and required no interference.

5. It was clarified that the observations made should not be considered as findings against the manufacturing unit, as their appeal was not before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the appeal by the Department was rejected based on the analysis of the relevant provisions and lack of evidence implicating the owner and driver of the truck in the clandestine activities.