2014 (3) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Incomplete entry in RG-1 register - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - while the invoice accompanying the goods was for 15.065 M.T. of bars, the weight of the goods actually loaded in the truck was 20.5 M.T. and, as such, 5.455 M.T. of the bars had been cleared without payment of duty. It is also seen that though subsequently the appellant paid duty on the excess quantity, on the date of interception of the truck, there is no entry in the RG-1 register regarding clearance of the goods covered under the invoice - confiscation of the goods, redemption fine and imposition of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11AC is upheld - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess goods loaded in the truck
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant company and its director
3. Setting aside of penalty on the truck driver
4. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order

Confiscation of Excess Goods Loaded in the Truck:
The case involved the interception of a truck carrying excess finished goods by Central Excise officers. The weight of the goods loaded was more than what was mentioned in the invoice, resulting in clearance of goods without payment of duty. Despite the subsequent payment of duty on the excess quantity, the lack of entry in the RG-1 register regarding clearance of goods on the interception date led to the upholding of confiscation of the goods, redemption fine, and imposition of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11AC. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant company.

Imposition of Penalty on the Appellant Company and its Director:
The penalty was imposed on the appellant company for the duty involved in the excess goods loaded in the truck. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the director of the appellant company under Rule 26. However, the Tribunal held that just because a penalty was imposed on the appellant company, it cannot be a ground for non-imposition of penalty on the director or other individuals involved in dealing with the excisable goods with knowledge of liability for confiscation. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and restored the penalty on the director.

Setting Aside of Penalty on the Truck Driver:
The penalty on the truck driver was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that neither the driver nor the owner of the truck had knowledge about the excess goods loaded in the vehicle. This decision was not challenged further in the Tribunal's judgment.

Appeal Against the Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant company while allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Assistant Commissioner regarding the confiscation of goods and the imposition of penalty on the director of the appellant company, thereby restoring the original Adjudicating Authority's order on this matter.