2013 (7) TMI 712 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Held that - No documents found, for movement of goods, which would indicate that there is no conclusive evidence that consignment was sent for weighing purposes, except for some statement recorded by the authorities - The statement indicates that the goods were removed without any preparation of invoices or recording them in the statutory records - The goods are liable to duty, their confiscation is upheld under the provisions of 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Decided against the Assessee. Quantum of redemption fine - Redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority of Rs.1,15,000/- - Held that - Duty liability on the quantity of the goods is only Rs.24,000/- - The ends of the justice will be met if the redemption fine is reduced from Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. The impugned order upholding the confiscation of the goods, is correct, but the amount of redemption fine is reduced to Rs.40,000/-. Penalty under Rule 26/ Rule 24 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar, stated that the vehicle was going for weighing purposes and there was no document and has admitted the mistake of the removal of the excisable goods without valid documents/invoices to avoid central excise duty Held that - The Second appellant penalised under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - The second appellant being an employee of the company, need not be saddled with heavy penalty imposed on him which needs to be reduced to Rs.2,000/- as it is seen that he has specifically stated that the vehicle has gone for weighing purposes The provisions of Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 also been invoked against him on the ground that he had not prepared any invoice and has not recorded the clearances in the statutory records nor any kaccha documents prepared.

Issues:
1. Stay petition against waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and redemption fine.
2. Confiscation of goods, duty liability, interest, penalties, and redemption fine.
3. Dispute over procedures for removal of excisable goods and imposition of penalties.
4. Appeal against excessive redemption fine and personal penalty imposed.
5. Reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty.

Analysis:
1. The stay petition challenged the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and redemption fine. The main appellant had already paid the duty liability, interest, and 25% of the penalty before the show cause notice. The Tribunal considered this sufficient to proceed with the appeal after granting a waiver for the balance amounts.

2. The case involved the confiscation of goods, duty liability, interest, penalties, and a redemption fine. The appellant, a ship-breaking unit, faced charges based on goods found near its premises. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, interest, penalties, and imposed a redemption fine. The first appellate authority upheld the decision, leading to the appeals.

3. The dispute centered on procedural lapses in removing excisable goods for weighing purposes and the subsequent penalties imposed. The appellant argued that the confiscation was unjustified, given the payment made before the show cause notice. The respondent contended that proper procedures were not followed, justifying the confiscation and penalties.

4. The appellant challenged the excessive redemption fine and personal penalty. The Tribunal found the duty liability and penalties already paid in compliance with the law. While upholding the confiscation, the Tribunal deemed the redemption fine excessive and reduced it to Rs.40,000 to align with the duty liability.

5. The second appellant faced penalties under Rule 24 of the Central Excise Rules for procedural violations. Despite acknowledging the mistake, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs.2,000 considering the appellant's role as an employee. Both appeals were disposed of, with modifications to the redemption fine and personal penalty, ensuring justice was served in the case.

← Previous Next →