2013 (11) TMI 1168 - AT - Central Excise

Extended Period of Limitation - Confiscation of the seized goods under Rule 25 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 Held that - The period for issue of show cause notice as per Rule 110 of the Customs Act is only relevant in the context, that if the show cause notice is not issued within the period the prescribed period, the goods are liable to be released - There is no provision that the show cause notice for confiscation of seized goods cannot be issued after expiry from the date of seizure - The show cause notice for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty can be issued even if the goods have been released or goods have not been seized. Prima facie, M/s. Taneja Iron & Steel Co. have cleared the seized goods without payment of duty and M/s. Taneja Brothers have dealt with the same knowing that in respect of the goods there was no duty paying documents - The penalty appears to be correctly imposed on the appellants under Rule 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules Prima facie this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit - Both the appellants directed to deposit an amount Rupees Twenty Thousand as pre-deposit upon such submission rest of the deposit to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice issued after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure.
2. Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under Central Excise Rules.
3. Applicability of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules to goods seized from a trader's premises.

Issue 1: Validity of show cause notice issued after the expiry of six months from the date of seizure.
The Commissioner extended the period for issuing the show cause notice by four months, ensuring compliance within the stipulated time. The Addl. Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice, confiscating goods from Taneja Brothers and imposing penalties on both Taneja Brothers and Taneja Iron and Steel Co. The appellants challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order. The appellant argued that the delayed show cause notice invalidated the confiscation order, citing the Tribunal's judgment in a similar case.

Issue 2: Confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under Central Excise Rules.
The appellant contended that the goods seized from Taneja Brothers could not be confiscated under Rule 25(1) as they were not manufacturers or registered dealers. The Departmental Representative argued that the show cause notice was validly issued after the extension by the competent authority. The confiscation of goods without duty paying documents was justified, and penalties were imposed on both appellants for their roles in the matter.

Issue 3: Applicability of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules to goods seized from a trader's premises.
The Tribunal clarified that the show cause notice period extension by the competent authority was lawful. The show cause notice for confiscation and penalty imposition can be issued even after the release of goods or if goods were not seized. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules allows confiscation of goods contravening the provisions, irrespective of the place of seizure. Both appellants were directed to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe, indicating no grounds for waiving the pre-deposit requirement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the show cause notice, confirmed the confiscation of seized goods, and justified the imposition of penalties under the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal clarified that the rule allows confiscation of goods regardless of the place of seizure, emphasizing compliance with the deposit requirement for both appellants.