2017 (3) TMI 1148 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 on transporter - contraband items - appellants claim that they have neither transported the goods nor dealt with the same nor had any knowledge or reasons to believe that the goods which were in sealed packages were contraband goods - Held that - the Revenue failed to produce evidence on record to show that the appellant was aware of the contents of the bags recovered from their premises or non-duty paid character of the same - in the case of Vijay Transport Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Daman 2008 (5) TMI 530 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , Tribunal has observed that transporter can not be expected to be the expert of Central Excise laws to find out before transporting the goods as to whether the manufacturer has correctly discharged the duty burden or not - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition on transporters under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for goods related to clandestine removal by a manufacturer.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the penalty of ?25 lakh imposed on each appellant, transporters, for goods associated with clandestine removal by a manufacturer. The Central Excise officer visited the factory of the manufacturer and the appellant's office premises simultaneously. The officers found plastic bags in the appellant's premises containing gutkha pouches valued at ?24.57 lakhs, received without proper documentation. The appellant contended that as they received the goods the previous day without invoices, they were not liable for penalty under Rule 26, as they neither transported nor were aware of the goods' nature.

The impugned order confirmed the demand against the manufacturer, which was challenged separately. The appellant's defense was that they had no involvement in the alleged clandestine removal and lacked knowledge of the goods' duty status. The Commissioner's observation highlighted the transporter's association with the manufacturer's clandestine activities based on documentary evidence and statements. However, the appellant argued their innocence and lack of awareness regarding the goods' nature and duty status.

The Tribunal cited precedents to support the transporter's position. It emphasized that penalties cannot be imposed based on assumptions and presumptions. The judgments highlighted that transporters are not expected to be experts in Central Excise laws and that penalties require concrete evidence of awareness of non-duty paid goods. The Tribunal's decisions in similar cases emphasized the necessity of proving the transporter's conscious knowledge of the goods' duty status for penalty imposition.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the Revenue failed to provide evidence demonstrating the appellant's awareness of the goods' nature or non-duty paid status. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. The judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence and conscious knowledge in penalty imposition cases involving transporters in excise matters.