2015 (12) TMI 1139 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation the excess found seized Marble Slabs - Anti evasion duty - Non accounting of goods - Held that - Appellant authority has relied upon and identical decision of the Tribunal passed in the case of Eurasia Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Udaipur v. CCE Jaipur-I 2011 (2) TMI 581 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . In the said decision an identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal decision and the verdict was passed in favour of the assessee. Apart from the above the appellant authority has also found that that the seizure was effected under Rules 24 which relates to the seizure of the goods on which duty has not been paid. Inasmuch as the seized goods were still within the factory premises there was no requirement of duty payment. As such seizure under Rule 24 and the consequent confiscation was not call for - there was no evidence to show that the goods were not entered in the records with a mala fide motive of clandestine removal. Similarly invocation of provision of Section 117 of the Customs Act for imposition of penalty stand rightly held to be not applicable by the appellant authority - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of excess Marble Slabs
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalties
- Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order

Confiscation of excess Marble Slabs:
The case involved the confiscation of 1105.925 Sqr. Mtr. of Marble Slabs found unaccounted for in the daily stock register of the manufacturer during a visit by Anti-Evasion officers. The proceedings for confiscation were initiated through a show cause notice, leading to an order confiscating the slabs with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The Tribunal noted that the seizure was under Rules 24, which pertains to goods on which duty has not been paid, but since the seized goods were still within the factory premises, duty payment was not required. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the confiscation under Rule 24 was not justified.

Imposition of redemption fine and penalties:
The Additional Commissioner had imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 3,50,000/- along with penalties under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the unrecorded goods were intended for clandestine removal, indicating no mala fide intent. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the invocation of Section 117 of the Customs Act for penalty imposition was not applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the redemption fine and penalties.

Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order:
The Revenue filed the present appeal challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, upheld the views of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the lack of mala fide intent for unrecorded goods, the inapplicability of Section 117 of the Customs Act for penalties, and the absence of duty payment requirement for the seized goods within the factory premises. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).