2014 (6) TMI 551 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Penalty - Whether the seized goods, which was kept at the first floor of the registered premises, is liable to confiscation on the findings that the same was cleared from the appellant factory, with a malafide intention to subsequently clear the same in a clandestine manner - Held that - Appellant had taken a categorically stand before the authorities below that the material was temporarily shifted to first floor as the registered premises were being painted on account of the marriage ceremony in the family. The statutory records could not be produced on the visit of the officer inasmuch as they were also shifted by the concerned person, who had already left for Kolkata. The said person was called by the appellant and the records were produced by them on the very next day which stands rejected by the authorities below as an after thought - confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on both the appellant is not called for. However, I find that as the appellant have transferred the goods to the first floor without the permission of the officers which is a procedural and technical laps, the same requires imposition of token penalty, in terms of provision of Rule 27, which provides a maximum penalty of ₹ 5,000/-. Accordingly penalty on M/s. Vikram Prasad Vinod Kumar is reduced to ₹ 5,000 - Penalty reduced - Confiscation of goods set aside - Decided Partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalty, involvement of multiple entities, procedural lapses.

Confiscation of Seized Goods:
The case involved the confiscation of goods seized by Central Excise Officers due to suspicions of clandestine removal. The seized goods were valued at around 30 lakh with a duty of Rs. 4,77,966. The appellant argued that the goods were temporarily shifted to the first floor for painting during a family event and not for clandestine purposes. The tribunal found no evidence of malafide intent or preparation for clandestine removal, as shifting to the first floor did not align with such intentions. The explanation provided by the appellant was accepted, and the confiscation of goods was deemed unnecessary.

Imposition of Penalty:
The Assistant Commissioner had imposed penalties on various entities involved, including the manufacturing unit and another trading firm, for contraventions related to the seized goods. The tribunal noted procedural and technical lapses in the case, specifically the unauthorized transfer of goods to the first floor without officer permission. While the penalties were upheld for procedural violations, the tribunal reduced the penalty on the manufacturing unit to Rs. 5,000, considering it a token penalty under Rule 27.

Involvement of Multiple Entities:
The judgment highlighted the involvement of multiple entities in the case, including the manufacturing unit, a trading firm located in the same premises, and individuals associated with each entity. Penalties were imposed on different parties based on their roles in the alleged clandestine activities. The tribunal assessed each entity's culpability and involvement before making decisions on confiscation and penalties.

Procedural Lapses:
The tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses in the case, such as the absence of statutory records during the officer's visit, which was attributed to the proprietor's unavailability and the premises being painted. The tribunal extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant due to the circumstances surrounding the non-production of records. While recognizing the procedural lapses, the tribunal emphasized the need for adherence to procedural requirements and imposed a token penalty for the unauthorized transfer of goods.

The judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi addressed issues related to the confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalties, involvement of multiple entities, and procedural lapses in a case involving suspicions of clandestine activities. The tribunal considered explanations provided by the appellant, lack of evidence for malafide intent, and procedural violations before making decisions on confiscation and penalties, ultimately reducing the penalty on the manufacturing unit and setting aside confiscation and penalties on other appellants.