2012 (11) TMI 525 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the goods seized from the godown of other party ( R Ltd)and subsequently confiscated were liable to duty in the hands of assessee on allegation that assessee had manufactured and cleared the said goods without payment of duty and without issue of Central Excise invoices R Ltd submitted that goods procured from M/s K supported by invoices who in turn had purchased said goods from assesse - Held that - It can be seen from SCN that R Ltd specifically produced invoices of M/s. K and statements recorded from the proprietor of M/s. K specifically states that they had purchased these goods from assessee and statements recorded from the personnel of assessee company clearly indicate that assessee never dealt with R Ltd directly. Goods were supplied through their dealer M/s. K. If that be so and if the evidence as regards receipt of goods on valid documents from M/s. K were produced lower authorities should have considered that evidences in proper perspective. Be that as it may it can be seen from SCN that the goods which were purchased by M/s. K was duty paid as per the report of Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory premises of assesse. In view of the forgoing impugned order to the extent it confirms demand on assessee along with interest and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty and penalties imposed on M/s K and its proprietor seems to be unsustainable Decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Duty liability on seized goods
2. Penalty imposition on involved parties

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on seized goods
The case involved the seizure of gutkha and pan masala from a godown without proper invoices. The goods were seized under a Panchnama, and it was found that they were manufactured and cleared without payment of duty or issuance of Central Excise invoices. Show cause notices were issued to various parties, including the manufacturers and traders involved. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and duty. The first appellate authority upheld the duty demand and penalties imposed. The appellant argued that evidence, such as invoices and statements, indicated that the goods were duty paid, but the department did not consider these in their decision. The appellate tribunal noted that the goods were purchased by a dealer from the manufacturer and were duty paid as per reports from the Superintendent of Central Excise. The tribunal found that the lower authorities should have considered this evidence and concluded that the duty liability on the manufacturer and trader was unsustainable.

Issue 2: Penalty imposition on involved parties
The penalties imposed on the manufacturer and trader were also challenged in the appeal. The appellant argued that the penalties were unjustified, given the evidence showing that the goods were duty paid. The tribunal found that since the duty liability itself was unsustainable due to the evidence presented, the penalties imposed on the manufacturer and trader were also set aside. The tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent that it challenged the duty demand, penalties, and confirmed the unsustainable nature of the impugned order regarding duty and penalties. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on the manufacturer and trader involved in the case. The tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence in determining duty liability and penalties in such cases.