9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 124 - AT - Central ExciseWhether goods can be confiscated and fine be imposed when excisable goods are not available - issue had already been settled in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Raja Impex (P) Ltd., where it was held that fine was not imposable when goods were allowed to be cleared Tribunal in case of Chinku Exports case also took the similar view, which was affirmed by SC such order are binding also the binding precedent under Custom Act are applicable to excisable goods issue is decided against the Revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Whether goods not available for confiscation can be confiscated and redemption fine imposed. 2. Whether the same principle applies under both the Central Excise Rules and the Customs Act. Issue 1: Whether goods not available for confiscation can be confiscated and redemption fine imposed. The appellants in the Excise Appeal were engaged in the manufacture of MS/CTD bars and were found to have clandestinely removed goods without paying Central Excise duty. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner proposed to demand duty, confiscate the goods, and impose a penalty. The appellants contested the confiscation, arguing that goods not physically available for confiscation could not be confiscated, nor could redemption fine be imposed. This argument was rejected by the adjudicating authority, which ordered confiscation and imposed a fine and penalty. The appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions on whether goods not available for confiscation could be confiscated and redemption fine imposed, leading to a referral to a larger bench. In the Customs Appeal, the respondent imported an old vessel with remnant oil on board. After assessment and clearance, the customs authorities detained a tanker-lorry carrying the oil, finding the fuel oil to be "off specification material/waste oil." The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation and imposed a fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation, reducing the penalty, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted conflicting decisions on the imposition of redemption fine when goods were not available for confiscation, leading to a referral to a larger bench. Issue 2: Whether the same principle applies under both the Central Excise Rules and the Customs Act. The Tribunal considered submissions from both sides. The respondent's counsel in the Customs Appeal cited the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Raja Impex (P) Ltd., where the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that redemption fine could not be imposed if goods were not available for confiscation unless cleared under bond/undertaking. The Tribunal also noted the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Civil Appeal in Chinku Exports, affirming the Tribunal's decision that redemption fine could not be imposed if goods were not available for confiscation and no bond/security was furnished. The learned Jt. CDR argued that the Tribunal's decision in Venus Enterprises, upheld by the Madras High Court, supported the imposition of fine even if goods were not available for confiscation. However, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in Venus Enterprises did not enhance its precedent value. The Tribunal found the decision in Raja Impex binding and applicable to both the Central Excise Rules and the Customs Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that redemption fine could not be imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act or Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules if goods were not available for confiscation and were not cleared under bond/undertaking. The issue was held against the Revenue, following the binding precedent set by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Raja Impex. The conflicting decision of the Madras High Court in Venus Enterprises was not considered good law on this point. (Pronounced in Court)
|
