2019 (8) TMI 1531 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Confiscation of seized goods - copper rods - copper wires - allegation that the same were not entered in their records under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT - The relevant invoices, as mentioned in para 2.2 of the order-in-appeal, being four invoices nos. 3968 to 3971 all dated 11.02.2015, show that the buyer is M/s. Malhotra Cables Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and the consignee is the appellant Kopertek Metals Pvt. Ltd. - thus, the impugned order is vitiated by mistake of facts. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Confiscation of seized goods under Central Excise Rules, 2002, imposition of penalties on the appellants, and correctness of the order-in-original.

Confiscation of Seized Goods:
The issue revolved around the confiscation of 56,235 kgs of copper rods and 7861 kgs of copper wire seized from the appellants for not being entered in their records under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The authorities alleged that the goods were received illegally for clandestine manufacturing, leading to evasion of duty. The appellants were given the option to pay a redemption fine equal to 25% of the value of the goods. The judgment analyzed the circumstances of the case, including statements from involved parties, to determine the legality of the seizure and confiscation.

Imposition of Penalties:
Another issue was the imposition of penalties on the appellants under Rule 25 and on the appellant Directors under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The penalties were based on the alleged violations related to the seized goods not being recorded in the statutory registers. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalties. The judgment examined the quantum of duty that could be evaded due to the non-recording of goods to determine the appropriate fines and penalties.

Correctness of the Order-in-Original:
The appellants challenged the order-in-original, claiming that the goods belonged to a different entity and were properly invoiced. They argued that they were working on job work basis for the entity mentioned in the invoices and had cooperated with the authorities. The judgment reviewed the relevant invoices and found that there was a factual error in considering the consignor of the goods to be different than the appellant company. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, granting relief to the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalties, and the correctness of the order-in-original under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It analyzed the facts, statements, and invoices to determine the legality of the actions taken by the authorities and provided relief to the appellants based on the factual error in the order-in-original.