1988 (2) TMI 479 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and penalties imposed by the Collector.
2. Alleged violation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Improper consideration of evidence by the Collector.
4. Clubbing of goods for combined fine.
5. Denial of natural justice and the need for remand.
6. Non-release of unconditionally released goods by the department.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation and Penalties Imposed by the Collector:
The Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune ordered the confiscation of seized tobacco and snuff, allowing redemption on payment of fine. However, he released unconditionally 1402.300 kgs of tobacco and 92 kgs of roasted tobacco seized from M/s. Pawar Trading Co. Penalties were imposed on M/s. Pawar Trading Co. and various individuals. The Board, upon appeal, set aside the confiscation, fines, and penalties, finding fault with the Collector's decision.

2. Alleged Violation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules:
The learned departmental representative argued that the Board erred in setting aside the order of confiscation and penalties, as the Collector had indeed recorded a finding of contravention of Rule 9(1). The Government of India also contended that the penalties were justified and that the case should have been remanded for a fresh adjudication if there was a violation of natural justice.

3. Improper Consideration of Evidence by the Collector:
The Board found that the Collector did not properly consider the evidence, including various statements and documents produced by the respondents. The Board noted that there was no evidence of unauthorized clearance without payment of duty, and thus, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, setting aside the Collector's order. The Board criticized the Collector for clubbing all quantities together and passing a combined fine.

4. Clubbing of Goods for Combined Fine:
The Board observed that clubbing goods recovered from different persons and providing one combined fine was incorrect. The Government of India, however, argued that the combined fine was appropriate since the persons belonged to a joint Hindu family. The Tribunal found the Government's observation factually incorrect, noting that some goods were seized from a partnership firm, which cannot be equated with a joint family.

5. Denial of Natural Justice and the Need for Remand:
The Government of India and the departmental representative argued that if there was a violation of natural justice, the proper course would have been to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The Board, however, believed that the facts and circumstances did not justify a remand. The Tribunal agreed with the Board, noting that the evidence favorable to the respondents was not considered by the Collector, and the burden of proof was not properly discharged by the department.

6. Non-release of Unconditionally Released Goods by the Department:
The Tribunal noted that despite the adjudicating authority's order to unconditionally release certain quantities of tobacco and roasted tobacco, the departmental authorities did not comply. The respondents were also not allowed to exercise the option of paying the fine in lieu of confiscation. This conduct was criticized as causing unnecessary harassment and inconvenience, with the seized goods becoming worthless over time.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Board's decision to set aside the Collector's order of confiscation, fines, and penalties, finding no reason to interfere. The Tribunal emphasized the improper consideration of evidence, the incorrect clubbing of goods, and the unjustified issuance of the show cause notice by the Government of India. The Tribunal also criticized the department's failure to release unconditionally released goods and allow the payment of fines, noting the resulting harassment and inconvenience.