2012 (12) TMI 911 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that - In absence of cogent evidence corroborating such defence plea statement of driver was found to be most reliable and credible when the goods were found to be with temperature proving to be manufacture of 20.2.2008 and possibly loaded at 0930 hrs. of 20.2.2008 when the appellants failed to produce any evidence to show that the goods were not manufactured on 20.2.2008 for transportation of goods on 20.2.2008. This clearly shows that truck was available even meeting its repair on 19.2.2008 for transportation of goods on 20.2.2008. This also proves that the invoice No. 1438 dated 19.2.2008 was used to conceal clandestine removal of the goods of 20.2.20008. So also when plea of repair of truck was advanced there was no evidence to show that the truck returned with the goods of 19.2.2008 if any loaded therein. Accordingly it is not possible to hold that the seized goods were not cleared out of the goods manufactured on 20.2.2008 in view of peculiar circumstance of hot ingots found in truck. Entire defence plea being pulpable were without credence and edifice for which adjudication is bound to be sustained - Fine and penalty reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of facts and documents related to the interception of goods.
2. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods and duty evasion.
3. Reliability of evidence and statements provided by the parties.
4. Application of legal principles and precedents in determining liability.
5. Imposition of duty, redemption fine, and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of facts and documents concerning the interception of goods in a truck. The appellant argued that the goods were accounted for on a specific date, while the Revenue contended that the documents were used to conceal the clearance of goods on another date, indicating clandestine removal. The assistance of an amicus curiae was sought due to the lack of detailed facts presented by the appellants.

2. The allegations of clandestine removal of goods and duty evasion were central to the case. The Revenue argued that the seized goods were loaded freshly on the day of interception, supported by the driver's statement and other evidence. The Panchnama and statements of individuals pointed towards an oblique motive on the part of the appellant, indicating unauthorized removal of goods without duty payment.

3. The reliability of evidence and statements provided by the parties was crucial in the judgment. The Adjudicating Authority found the driver's statement regarding the loading and timing of goods to be the most credible, dismissing the appellant's defense as lacking evidence. The lack of corroborating evidence for the appellant's claims led to the rejection of their plea and the acceptance of the Revenue's arguments.

4. The judgment extensively applied legal principles and precedents to determine liability. It referenced specific cases such as Alagappa Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai and CCE vs. International Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. to support the decision to sustain the adjudication based on the peculiar circumstances of the case. The application of these precedents guided the final order in imposing duty, redemption fine, and penalties.

5. In the final disposition, the tribunal allowed the appeals partly, reducing the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the appellants. Duty became payable as per the sustained adjudication, with adjustments made to the fines and penalties based on the doctrine of proportionality. The judgment concluded with the pronouncement of the orders in open court, outlining the adjustments and decisions made based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved.