2010 (12) TMI 376 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Penalty - Confiscation - there is no substantial evidence to prove that the Director was involved in evasion of duty by the company - when non-marketable defective goods were lying and a prayer was made for destruction thereof, there was no need of entering such goods in the statutory records, in as much as goods are recorded in the statutory record when they are finished goods and would be cleared soon for marketing purpose - there is no evidence to prove that the Director, appellant No. 2 before the Tribunal, was involved in evasion of duty by the company, Rule 209A of the Rules made it absolutely clear that no penalty could be imposed upon the Director.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay Condonation Application No. 3407 of 2009
2. Review Application No. 296 of 2009
3. Central Excise Appeal No. 03 of 2006

Issue 1: Delay Condonation Application No. 3407 of 2009
The court considered the application for condonation of delay, noting that no counter affidavit was filed. After reviewing the averments in the application, the court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the review application.

Issue 2: Review Application No. 296 of 2009
The appeal raised two questions of law regarding the reduction of mandatory penalties under the Central Excise Act and the justification of setting aside confiscation and penalties on the Director. The court found that one question had not been decided previously and, therefore, recalled the order under review. Regarding the second question, the court upheld the Tribunal's findings that non-marketable defective goods did not need to be entered in statutory records and that there was no evidence of the Director's involvement in duty evasion, thus ruling in favor of the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Central Excise Appeal No. 03 of 2006
The court addressed two questions of law in this appeal. The first question was resolved by following a previous judgment. For the second question, the court affirmed the Tribunal's findings that non-marketable defective goods did not require entry in statutory records and that there was no evidence of the Director's involvement in duty evasion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In summary, the court allowed the delay condonation application, recalled an order for a review application, and upheld the Tribunal's decisions in both the review application and the central excise appeal, based on the specific legal interpretations and factual findings presented in each case.