2019 (6) TMI 1190 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - confiscated goods - whether sale took place or not - HELD THAT - There were no evidences to establish that the confiscated goods were cleared by the appellant without payment of duty and therefore the duty liability cannot be fastened on the appellant - demand set aside - penalties also set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and redemption of seized goods
2. Imposition of penalties on the manufacturer and another appellant
3. Duty liability on confiscated goods

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a common impugned order-in-appeal related to investigations conducted post-28.02.2007 on M/s.Durga Trading Co. involved in manufacturing Gutkha under the brand name Pukar. Various seizures and investigations were carried out, including at office premises and railway stations, resulting in the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

2. The appellants argued that they never claimed ownership of the seized goods and relied on a Tribunal finding that the Revenue failed to investigate properly. They contended that the goods on which duty was paid were different from those confiscated, emphasizing they had no control over the goods post-clearance from their factory. The appellants asserted they were not concerned with the confiscated goods.

3. The Revenue supported the impugned order-in-appeal, but upon reviewing the case record, submissions, and previous Tribunal findings, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence proving the confiscated goods were cleared without duty payment. Consequently, the duty liability could not be imposed on the appellants. The Tribunal set aside the penalties and the demand for Central Excise duty on the confiscated goods, ruling in favor of the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the impugned order and relieving the manufacturer and the other appellant from the penalties and duty liability associated with the confiscated goods.