2007 (7) TMI 60 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation redemption fine and penalty Revenue contended that respondent is clandestine remover of goods and accordingly fine and penalty imposed - Revenue is unable to prove that respondent is clandestine remover and accordingly fine and penalty set aside

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against confiscation and penalty imposed on excisable goods (DPC Copper Wire) under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside the confiscation of excisable goods valued at Rs. 16,185 and imposed a fine and penalty on the Respondent. The Appellate Commissioner noted that the seized goods were in the process of reconditioning as per the partner of the firm, and there was no evidence to prove clandestine removal by the respondent.

2. The Department's Representative argued that the Appellate Commissioner had no basis to deviate from the adjudicating authority's findings, which supported the confiscation and penalty. However, it was observed that the goods were located within the factory premises, and the Revenue failed to verify the claim that they were still being reconditioned and not finished. There was no indication of clandestine removal, and the Revenue did not establish any imminent risk of removal from the factory.

3. The judgment highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the original order since the Revenue could not substantiate the claim of clandestine removal. The findings were deemed not perverse or contrary to the law. As a result, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on 16-7-2007, concluding the legal proceedings regarding the appeal against the confiscation and penalty imposed on the excisable goods.