2013 (12) TMI 931 - AT - Central Excise

Excess goods not clandestine removal Clerical mistake - Held that - There is clear finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that excess found goods were not meant for clandestine removal and it was only a case of clerical mistake on the part of the appellants Following CCE, Chandigarh vs. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. 2010 (1) TMI 500 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - non accountal of the goods, which are not meant for clandestine removal would not attract penal provisions, inasmuch as mens rea for imposition of penalty is required the confiscation of the goods or imposition of penalty is not justified Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and penalty imposition for non-accounting of seized goods during factory visit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involves the case of M/s. SR Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. where a quantity of M. S. Wire was found unaccounted for during a factory visit by preventive officers. The goods were seized under panchnama, and subsequent notices were issued for confiscation and penalty imposition. The adjudicating authority had initially confiscated the goods with a redemption fine and imposed penalties on both the company and its director. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and found that the excess goods were not intended for clandestine removal but were a result of a clerical mistake. Citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Commissioner held that penal provisions require mens rea, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the Commissioner reduced the penalty imposed on the company and the director to an amount claimed to have been pre-deposited, setting aside the confiscation and penalties. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants based on the lack of intent for clandestine removal and the clerical nature of the error.

This judgment highlights the importance of proving intent and mens rea in cases of non-accounting of goods during factory visits. It emphasizes that penal provisions necessitate evidence of deliberate evasion, and mere clerical errors may not warrant confiscation or penalties. The decision underscores the need for a clear connection between the actions of the party involved and the intent to evade duties. The reference to legal precedents adds weight to the Commissioner's decision to reduce the penalties based on the absence of mens rea in the case at hand. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing confiscation and penalty imposition in excise cases, requiring a careful assessment of intent and evidence before punitive actions are taken.