2017 (7) TMI 53 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation - penalty - goods were not entered in the specified Register RG-1 - Held that - the involvement of the appellant in contravention of the provisions of law of Central Excise has been found - looking to the facts that the goods were lying in the factory premises only for which RG-1 register was not produced, the penalty is reduced to Rs. one lakh only. Seizure of goods - the invoices were produced on 30th June 2010, i.e. after two days of seizure, but those invoices were not examined by the Revenue - Held that - those invoices were not examined by the Revenue, neither at the level of original adjudicating authority nor at the appellate stage. Therefore, the impugned order in the case of appellant M/s Aarkaylite Electricals is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority, who shall examine the invoices/documents produced by the appellant and after giving opportunity of personal hearing - appeal allowed by way of remand. Penalty on Shri R.K. Gupta, who is working only as a part time Clerk cum Accountant at a remuneration of ₹ 1000 per month with M/s Prakash Switchgear - The department s stand is that Shri R.K. Gupta has dealt with excise records and abetted the assessee appellant, M/s Prakash Switchgear in suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty of Central Excise - Held that - the fact that Shri R.K. Gupta had taken RG-1 register, itself shows that he is equally responsible for contravention of Central Excise law. From the records and submissions of both the sides, there is no dispute that he is a part time employee, who is working on a small remuneration of ₹ 1000/- a month; therefore, taking a lenient view, the penalty imposed on him of ₹ 1 lakhs is reduced to ₹ 1000/- only. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and redemption of finished goods and MCBs.
2. Central Excise duty confirmation and penalty imposition.
3. Abatement on MRP value and penalty reduction.
4. Seizure of unaccounted goods and subsequent legal proceedings.
5. Involvement of different appellants in contravention of Central Excise laws.

Analysis:
1. Confiscation and Redemption:
The judgment deals with the confiscation and redemption of finished goods and MCBs belonging to various appellants. The Order-in-Original imposed penalties and redemption fines on the appellants based on the seized goods. The appellate tribunal modified the penalties and redemption fines, considering factors such as the presence of goods in the factory premises and the lack of proof regarding duty payment for certain goods.

2. Central Excise Duty and Penalty:
The Order-in-Original confirmed Central Excise duty amounts and imposed penalties equivalent to the duty involved on the seized goods. The appellate tribunal examined the duty amounts, the circumstances of the goods' presence, and the responsibility of the appellants. Penalties were reduced based on the specific situations and legal provisions.

3. Abatement and Penalty Reduction:
The appellate tribunal allowed abatement on the MRP value of goods and reduced penalties under Central Excise Rules for certain appellants. This decision was made after considering the provisions of Notification No.2/2006-CE(NT) and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The modifications aimed to align penalties with duty demands and legal requirements.

4. Seizure and Legal Proceedings:
The case involved searches conducted by Central Excise officers at multiple premises, leading to the seizure of unaccounted goods. Show Cause Notices were issued, and subsequent legal proceedings resulted in the original orders being appealed and modified. The judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and examination of evidence during such proceedings.

5. Contravention of Central Excise Laws:
The judgment addresses the alleged contravention of Central Excise laws by the appellants. It examines the involvement of each appellant in the incidents leading to the confiscation and penalties. The tribunal considered factors such as the nature of the goods, ownership, and responsibility of individuals associated with the appellants in determining the appropriate penalties and legal outcomes.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved detailed analysis of confiscation, duty confirmation, penalty imposition, abatement, and legal proceedings related to contravention of Central Excise laws. The modifications made to the original orders aimed to ensure fairness and compliance with legal provisions while considering the specific circumstances of each appellant's case.