2007 (9) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Goods confiscated on ground that vehicle was carrying goods without invoices evidence shown by assessee that invoices were made but driver of vehicle did not collect those invoices quadruplicate copies of invoice also produced by assessee no clandestine removal - confiscation not justified penalty and interest not justified revenue s appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of demand of Central Excise duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods and vehicles.
2. Questioning the reduction of redemption fine by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The case involves two appeals filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai. The assessee challenged the demand of Central Excise duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods and vehicles, while the revenue questioned the reduction of the redemption fine. The facts of the case revolve around the interception of trucks carrying CTD bars, the detention and subsequent seizure of goods, and the issuance of show cause notices regarding alleged clandestine clearance without duty payment.

2. The main contention of the assessee was that they had prepared duty-paying documents and paid the duty subsequently. The invoices were produced before investigating officers, and duty was debited in the ledger account. The Tribunal observed that there was no deliberate suppression of facts to evade duty, concluding that the seized goods were duty-discharged and not liable for confiscation. Citing precedents, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods and trucks, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.

3. The Tribunal also considered the argument regarding the reduction of redemption fine by the Commissioner. It was contended that the reduction was erroneous, and the revenue should not have appealed against it. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and upheld the Commissioner's decision.

4. Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of interest and penalty. The assessee claimed that no interest was leviable as the duty was paid before the due date, and the penalty amount was paid within the stipulated time frame. The Tribunal acknowledged these submissions and set aside the penalty and interest amount, further emphasizing that no further duty, penalty, or interest was payable.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the confiscation of goods and trucks, as well as the penalty and interest amount. The revenue's appeal was rejected, and consequential relief was granted by releasing the bond and bank guarantee executed by the assessee during provisional release. The judgment was pronounced on 3-9-2007 by Shri T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai.