9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 586 - HC - Central ExciseConfiscation of goods - Held that - The finding of the Tribunal that the goods found in the factory are confiscated has not been challenged by the respondent before this Court. Therefore no decision is called for in this regard. Redemption fine reduced by Tribunal - Held that - Reasons provided by the Tribunal as to the facts and circumstances which had led it to reduce redemption fine from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.50, 000/- only is not provided - Tribunal is required to reconsider the issue of imposition of redemption fine. Duty Demand - 9120 kgs. of Sikandar Gutka of printed laminated flexible film rolls found in the godown of the transporter - Tribunal allowed the appeal - Held that - The Tribunal has failed to consider that the adjudicating authority had in his order recorded a finding that the respondent were not recording production in production slips/records so as to evade payment of excise duty. However the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) placing reliance upon the statement of an employee of the respondent to the effect that the only factory in Mahad area manufacturing printed laminated film rolls was that of the respondent No.1. Further the statement of the respondent No.3 and his employee were ignored by the Tribunal merely on the ground that their statement in the absence of corroboration by any independent evidence cannot be accepted. There is no analysis of why the orders of the lower authorities holding the Sikandar Gutka printed laminated flexible film rolls were liable for confiscation and that respondent No.1 is liable to pay excise duty of Rs.2.57 lakhs is bad in law - restore the matter to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration - appeal in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Reduction of Redemption Fine 2. Setting Aside Demand of Central Excise Duty 3. Setting Aside Personal Penalty 4. Overturning Concurrent Factual Findings Detailed Analysis: 1. Reduction of Redemption Fine: The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of 40147 kgs of printed laminated flexible film rolls found in the respondent's factory but reduced the redemption fine from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal did not provide any reasons for this reduction, merely stating it was based on the "facts and circumstances of the case." The High Court found this lack of reasoning insufficient, emphasizing that the Tribunal is expected to give reasons in support of its order. Therefore, the High Court deemed the reduction of the redemption fine unsustainable and required the Tribunal to reconsider this issue with proper reasoning. 2. Setting Aside Demand of Central Excise Duty: The Tribunal set aside the demand of Rs.2.57 lacs for 9120 kgs of "Sikandar Gutka" printed laminated rolls found in the transporter's godown. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's claim that these goods were manufactured by M/s. Sanket Food Products Private Limited, not the respondent. The High Court noted that the Tribunal ignored the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, which had concluded that the respondent had cleared these goods without payment of duty based on statements from the transporter and his employee. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for not providing any discussion or analysis to justify overturning these findings, thus requiring the Tribunal to reconsider this issue. 3. Setting Aside Personal Penalty: The Tribunal also set aside the penalties imposed on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 without assigning any reasons. The High Court found this lack of reasoning problematic, as the penalties were initially imposed based on the findings that the respondents were involved in the evasion of duty. The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the imposition of penalties on respondent Nos. 2 and 3, providing proper reasons for its decision. 4. Overturning Concurrent Factual Findings: The Tribunal overturned the concurrent factual findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) without providing adequate reasons. The lower authorities had found that the respondent had not accounted for the goods in the statutory records and had cleared goods without payment of duty. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal failed to analyze why it did not accept these findings, particularly ignoring statements from key individuals and the lack of production records. The High Court required the Tribunal to reconsider these findings with a detailed analysis. Conclusion: The High Court answered all the questions in favor of the appellant-revenue and against the respondents. It set aside the Tribunal's order dated 27/6/2005 and restored the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on: - The imposition of redemption fine on confiscated goods. - The duty demand of Rs.2.57 lakhs for goods found at the transporter's godown. - The penalties imposed on respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Tribunal is directed to pass a fresh order with proper reasoning for its conclusions. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
