2012 (2) TMI 433 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Goods cleared without payment of duty - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has held the goods not liable for confiscation and there is no challenge by the Department against these findings. We agree with the ld. Advocate that once the goods itself are not liable for confiscation vehicles also would not be liable for confiscation and vehicles owners would also not be liable for any penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against confiscation of goods and penalty on owners of vehicles.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation of Goods and Penalties: The case involved two vehicles intercepted by Central Excise Officers carrying brass sheets and circles without duty payment documents. The Adjudicating authority proposed confiscation of goods and penalties on manufacturers and owners. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed confiscation and penalties on the owners but dropped proceedings against the manufacturers. The appellant argued that duty was paid monthly by manufacturers, and as goods were duty-paid, vehicles should not be liable for confiscation or owners for penalties.

2. Commissioner's Findings: The Commissioner found that the manufacturers had paid duty, and the goods were not liable for confiscation. The Adjudicating authority noted that duty invoices were found later, and the manufacturers, being small and remote, waited for officers to visit before providing proof of duty payment. The vehicles did not carry the invoices due to oversight by the drivers. The Commissioner held that since the goods were not liable for confiscation, the vehicles and owners should also not be penalized.

3. Decision: The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, stating that if goods were not liable for confiscation, then vehicles and owners should not face penalties. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeals regarding confiscation of vehicles and penalties on owners, with any consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized that once goods were not subject to confiscation, the vehicles and owners should not be penalized, thereby ruling in favor of the appellants.