2005 (12) TMI 523 - AT - Central Excise

Whether penalty can be imposed for offences committed prior to the introduction of Section 11AC in the statute book - goods allegedly removed without payment of duty - goods cleared by the appellant were manufactured and marketable Held that - He has removed goods without filing declarations and without even having himself registered as an SSI unit - appellant cannot contend that he was ignorant of the fact that the goods manufactured by him were excisable - show cause notice clearly states as to how the larger period is invocable - if the adjudication proceedings were conducted after Section 11AC has been brought to the statute book, penalty under that Section could be levied penalty under Section 11AC upheld

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of central excise duty on allegedly removed goods without payment.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Allegations of contravention of various rules by the appellant.
4. Appellant's contentions regarding natural justice, marketability of goods, calculation of demanded amount, penalty imposition, and confiscation of goods.

Issue 1: Demand of central excise duty on allegedly removed goods without payment:
The Commissioner demanded central excise duty on goods allegedly removed without payment, leading to a penalty and confiscation of goods. The appellant contested the demand, arguing lack of opportunity for defense and challenging the calculation of the amount.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with confiscating the goods. The appellant raised concerns about the penalty imposition and confiscation without proper notice to the owner of the premises where the goods were seized.

Issue 3: Allegations of contravention of various rules:
The Commissioner found the appellant in contravention of multiple Central Excise Rules, including failure to file declarations, contravention of various rules, and non-availment of SSI exemption. The classification of goods and determination of duty payable were key aspects of the contravention.

Issue 4: Appellant's contentions and final decision:
The appellant argued against the Commissioner's decision, citing lack of natural justice, non-marketability of goods, improper penalty imposition, and unjust confiscation of goods. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the excisability and marketability of the goods, validity of penalty imposition under Section 11AC, and dismissal of the appellant's objections regarding confiscation without notice to the owner.

This judgment addressed the demand for central excise duty on goods allegedly removed without payment, leading to penalty and confiscation. The Commissioner's decision was based on the excisability and marketability of the goods, contravention of rules by the appellant, and penalty imposition under Section 11AC. Despite the appellant's contentions on natural justice, marketability, penalty imposition, and confiscation, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the legality of the demand, penalty, and confiscation in accordance with the Central Excise Rules.