2002 (10) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition
- Claim of ownership by transporter
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 209A

Confiscation of Goods and Penalty Imposition:
The case involved an appeal against an order affirming the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties by the Additional Commissioner. The central excise officers intercepted trucks loaded with copper ingots, and subsequent investigations revealed discrepancies in the documentation and ownership claims. The goods were detained, and show cause notices were issued to the appellant and truck owners. The adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of goods and trucks, with penalties imposed on the owners and drivers. The appellant, a transporter, claimed that the goods should have been released to him as a trustee/bailee. However, the tribunal rejected this claim, stating that the appellant was not the owner of the goods but merely a transporter facilitating clandestine removal to evade duty. The documents accompanying the goods were fake, and neither the consignor nor the consignee came forward to claim the goods, leading to the upheld confiscation and penalties.

Claim of Ownership by Transporter:
The appellant contended that as a transporter, he was entitled to the custody of the goods seized, citing legal precedents. However, the tribunal dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the appellant's role was limited to transportation for a commission and not ownership. The appellant's association with the hidden manufacturer and the use of fake documents indicated complicity in evading duty. The tribunal differentiated this case from precedents where the burden of proof was on the revenue, highlighting the appellant's lack of ownership or manufacturing involvement.

Imposition of Penalty under Rule 209A:
Regarding the imposition of penalties under Rule 209A, the tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on the appellant, considering his role in facilitating the clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. The tribunal found the penalties justified given the appellant's conduct and involvement in the evasion scheme. The tribunal concluded that the penalties were appropriate and not excessive, given the circumstances. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) order in its entirety, dismissing the appellant's appeal for lacking merit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of confiscation of goods, the transporter's claim of ownership, and the imposition of penalties under Rule 209A, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and outcome of the case.