2008 (3) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of copper wire rods valued at Rs. 3,10,000 giving the appellant option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000 - What should be quantum of redemption fine would depend on the facts & circumstances of the case & no strait-jacket formula can be laid down. Broadly, it would depend on the nature of violation, the nature of goods, its market price etc. - fine of Rs. 50,000/- would be just & proper - appeal is dismissed subject to the reduction in fine

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of copper wire rods and tempo
2. Demand of central excise duty
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944
4. Redemption fine on confiscated goods
5. Redemption fine on confiscated tempo

Confiscation of Copper Wire Rods and Tempo:
The case involved the interception of a tempo carrying copper wire rods, leading to the confiscation of the goods and the vehicle. The driver's statement and discrepancies in the invoice raised suspicions of clandestine removal. The authorities seized the goods and the tempo under Panchnama due to the perceived liability for confiscation.

Demand of Central Excise Duty:
The appellant argued that duty had already been paid on a portion of the copper wire rods and should only be liable for the remaining quantity. However, the tribunal ruled that the clandestine removal of the entire 3100 kgs without proper documentation necessitated duty payment on the total quantity.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 11 AC:
The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for central excise duty and imposed a penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest. The penalty was justified based on the circumstances indicating potential clandestine activity.

Redemption Fine on Confiscated Goods:
The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument regarding the high redemption fine imposed on the confiscated goods. While the officer had discretion in quantifying the fine, it should be judiciously exercised. Considering the value of the goods and the duty payable, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000 as a more appropriate amount.

Redemption Fine on Confiscated Tempo:
The appellant raised concerns about the redemption fine imposed on the confiscated tempo. However, since the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle, the tribunal rejected this grievance, noting that the proper person to challenge the confiscation and fine would be the vehicle's owner, Chander Pal.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, with the reduction of the redemption fine on the confiscated goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of justly determining fines based on the specific circumstances of each case and clarified the distinction between liabilities of the appellant and the vehicle owner in cases of confiscation.