2008 (12) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Penalty Penalty of Clandestine removal - The appellants had failed to establish with documentary evidence that goods seized as well as the goods found to have been clandestinely cleared earlier had been manufactured by SAP as a job worker. As no valid challenge has been raised against the duty demanded, a penalty equal to the same is imposable on the assessee - Penalty on Driver - A driver in-charge of a vehicle transporting goods from one place to another is expected to be conversant with the formalities he has to follow in respect of the goods in transit as regards various laws such as the Sales Tax Act, Central Excise Act etc - The owner of the vehicle was found liable to a fine of Rs. 30,000/- imposed in this regard and the driver, a penalty of Rs. 2000/- imposed on him.

Summary

Issues:
- Reduction of penalty imposed on SAP
- Challenge to penalties imposed on SAP under different sections
- Challenge to fines and penalties imposed on the vehicle owner and driver

Reduction of penalty imposed on SAP:
The case involved five appeals against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. The facts revolved around the interception of a truck carrying Poly Propylene Rolls (PPR) and subsequent confiscation of the goods and the vehicle. The original authority imposed various penalties and fines on the involved parties. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties imposed on SAP under different sections of the Central Excise Act. SAP contested the penalties, arguing that penalties under different sections could not be simultaneously imposed for the same transaction. However, the Commissioner upheld the demand of duty related to clandestine clearances made by SAP and reduced certain fines and penalties. The Department filed an appeal against the reduction of penalty imposed on SAP.

Challenge to penalties imposed on SAP under different sections:
The appeal by SAP mainly contested the penalties imposed on them, claiming that penalties under Section 11AC of the Act and under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules could not be imposed simultaneously for the same transaction. SAP relied on a Tribunal's decision to support their argument. They also challenged fines imposed on excisable goods found liable for confiscation, stating that the authorities had not required them to produce the goods before ordering the fines. SAP further argued against the finding of liability of the truck for confiscation and the associated fines. The Revenue opposed SAP's arguments, citing a judgment of the Apex Court to support their position.

Challenge to fines and penalties imposed on the vehicle owner and driver:
The fines and penalties imposed on the vehicle owner and driver were also contested. SAP argued that the owner and driver were not aware that the vehicle was being used to transport excisable goods liable for confiscation. However, the Tribunal held that the driver should have been aware of the formalities and laws regarding the transport of goods. The Tribunal found the driver aware of the liability of the goods for confiscation and upheld the fines and penalties imposed on the vehicle owner and driver. The appeals filed by the revenue and SAP were partly allowed, while the appeals filed by other parties were dismissed.