2011 (9) TMI 871 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - raw materials found stored in the adjoining godown of the factory premises - Held that - Admittedly there was no shortage or excess of raw materials in the factory of the appellants at the time of visit of the officers. The raw material which stands confiscated by the authorities below was being stored in an adjoining godown of the appellants. Admittedly, the same has not reached the factory premises and the appellants had not availed the credit in respect of the same. The lower authorities by referring to the provisions of Rule 25, have imposed penalty upon the appellants under Rule 26. On going through Rule 25, I find that neither of the sub-clause of said rule gets invoked. The lower authorities have not referred to any provision of law requiring the assessee to account for the raw materials which might have been purchased by him and stored outside the factory premises of the appellants. I do not find any justifiable reason to either confiscate the said seized raw materials or to impose penalty upon the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of raw materials found in an adjoining godown during a factory visit.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellants for the seized raw materials.
3. Interpretation of Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Justifiability of the penalty and confiscation based on presumption and assumption.

Confiscation of Raw Materials:
The officers found raw materials valued at Rs. 2,92,000 stored in an adjoining godown during a factory visit. The General Manager admitted ownership without proper documentation. Show cause notice led to confiscation and a redemption fine of Rs. 75,000 was imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the present appeal.

Imposition of Penalty:
Penalties of Rs. 25,000 on Shri Sudhir Tobacco Co. and Rs. 10,000 on Shri V.P. Singh were imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The lower authorities invoked Rule 25, assuming future transfer of raw materials to the factory for duty-free clearance. However, Rule 25 did not apply as the goods were in the appellants' godown. The penalty was based on presumption without legal basis, leading to the order being set aside on appeal.

Interpretation of Rules:
The lower authorities incorrectly applied Rule 25 to penalize the appellants for raw materials stored in their godown. The judgment highlighted that Rule 25 did not justify the confiscation or penalty as the goods had not reached the factory premises and were not utilized for duty evasion. The decision to impose penalties lacked legal grounding and was solely based on unfounded assumptions about future actions of the appellants.

Justifiability of Confiscation and Penalty:
The judgment emphasized that there was no discrepancy in the factory's raw material stock during the visit. The confiscated raw materials were not utilized or accounted for in duty evasion. The order to confiscate and penalize was solely based on presumptions about future actions of the appellants, lacking legal backing. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.

---