2016 (10) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of cash seized - seizure of unaccounted cash and various documents - Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 readwith Section 12 of the Central Excise Act - seized cash to be treated as sale proceeds of clandestinely removed excisable goods - Held that - the seizure was made on the reasonable belief that this cash pertains to the sale proceeds of clandestinely removed goods. I also find that the Directors have admitted in their voluntarily statements that the seized cash was the sale proceeds of clandestinely cleared goods. It is seen that in addition to proceedings for confiscation of cash, detailed investigation into the alleged clandestine clearances by the appellant has been undertaken which has culminated into a separate proceeding resulting in demand of duty and imposition of penalty. I also find that this matter stands remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for denovo decision in the light of the directions by this Tribunal in appellant s own case reported in 2015 (10) TMI 2351 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Clandestine clearance of cement - Demand and imposition of penalty - Held that - it would be appropriate and necessary that the above and this appeal are considered and decided together. For this purpose, I consider it necessary to remand the present matter also to the original Adjudicating Authority who is directed to decide this matter alongwith the above matter. The learned original Adjudicating Authority is also being directed to give an opportunity to the appellant to represent his case. - Appeals allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-appeal upholding confiscation of cash seized during investigation for alleged clandestine clearance of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order-in-appeal upholding the confiscation of cash seized during an investigation into alleged clandestine clearance of goods. The investigating officers seized unaccounted cash and documents from the residences of three Directors of the appellant. The Original Adjudicating Authority ordered the confiscation of the cash under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Excise Act, treating it as sale proceeds of clandestinely removed goods. The Appellate Authority upheld the confiscation, leading to the present appeal. Separate proceedings were also initiated for the demand of Central Excise duty on goods allegedly cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. The Tribunal had previously remanded the duty demand proceedings to the original Adjudicating Authority for re-examination.

The appellant's counsel argued that the seized cash was already accounted for in the cash balance of other companies controlled by the Directors. She cited case laws to support her argument and contended that no investigation had established the seized cash as the sale proceeds of clandestinely cleared goods. The counsel emphasized that the cash should not be liable for confiscation solely based on the Director's confessional statement. In contrast, the Revenue's representative submitted a letter justifying the confiscation and relied on a case law stating that a voluntarily given confessional statement could be the basis for confirming the demand.

The Tribunal noted the seizure of unaccounted cash from the Directors' residences and their admission in voluntarily statements that the cash was from clandestinely cleared goods. The Tribunal observed that detailed investigations into alleged clandestine clearances had led to a separate proceeding for duty demand and penalty imposition. Given the intimate connection between the two proceedings arising from the same investigation, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for a joint decision with the duty demand matter already remanded earlier. The Authority was directed to allow the appellant to present their case in this regard.

In conclusion, the appeals were decided by way of remand, emphasizing the need to consider and decide the confiscation of cash and the duty demand together due to their close connection arising from the same investigation. The original Adjudicating Authority was directed to decide both matters jointly and provide the appellant with an opportunity to represent their case.