2010 (8) TMI 769 - AT - Central Excise

Enhancement of redemption fine - original authority ordered for confiscation of Loaded tempo at the factory gate of the assesses and imposed penalty same to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine - appellants submits that the goods were not intercepted away from the factory Held that - The entire sequence of the events clearly indicate that the appellants were not having weighing facility and the empty vehicle was earlier sent for weighment to Dharam Kanta and apparently after loading it was waiting at the factory gate as revealed in the order of the original authority, thus the claim of the appellant that they were to prepare the documents after taking exact weighment appears reasonable. As at any rate, the original authority held that the goods were offending in nature and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 8,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- no justification for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty as at any rate the question of penalty being in excess of the duty involved does not arise as the same is the maximum limit under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules - sett aside the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty sustained - in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and vehicle
2. Enhancement of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals)

Confiscation of goods and vehicle:
The case involved the seizure of goods and a vehicle by officers during a visit to a factory premises. The goods, valued at Rs. 1,23,400/- with duty amounting to Rs. 17,794/-, were seized along with the vehicle valued at Rs. 1,50,000/-. The original authority ordered confiscation of the goods and vehicle, allowing redemption on payment of fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced the redemption fine on the goods and penalty imposed. The appellant argued that the goods were not intercepted away from the factory, as the tempo was waiting for weighment after loading. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not have weighing facility and the sequence of events indicated that the goods were to be dispatched after weighment. The Tribunal found the original authority's fine and penalty reasonable and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, restoring the original authority's decision on confiscation and penalties.

Enhancement of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) had increased the redemption fine on the confiscated goods and penalty imposed by the original authority. The appellant contended that the steep enhancement was unjustified. The Tribunal observed that the department did not prove interception of goods at a significant distance from the factory. It found the appellants' explanation reasonable regarding the weighing process. The Tribunal held that the penalty was within the maximum limit under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules and that the appellants had not appealed against the original authority's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the original authority's order. The Tribunal did not address the confiscation and redemption fine on the vehicle as the owner did not appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the original authority's decision on the confiscation of goods and penalties. The Tribunal clarified that the vehicle owner's case was not addressed in the appeal proceedings.