2003 (3) TMI 254 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of goods and truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act, imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.

Confiscation of Goods and Truck:
The case involved the seizure of M.S. Bars from a truck at the business premises of the appellants. The truck, along with the goods, was seized as the driver could not produce any document regarding the lawful removal of the goods. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the confiscation of the goods and the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act. He provided an option for redemption on payment of fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this order.

Penalty Imposed under Rule 209A:
The appellants were penalized under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. However, upon review, it was found that the provisions of Rule 209A were not applicable to the case. The owner of the truck and the driver had no knowledge of the clandestine removal of the goods. The driver, at the time of seizure, mentioned that the owner did not provide any documents, but this did not imply his knowledge of the unlawful removal. The owner was not present during loading/unloading and had no obligation to inquire about duty payment. The Department should have proceeded against the owner of the goods instead of penalizing the driver and the truck owner. As there was no evidence of clandestine removal by the manufacturer/owner, the appellants could not be penalized under Rule 209A.

Judgment:
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the penalties imposed under Rule 209A and the confiscation of the truck were not legally sustainable. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and all appeals of the appellants were allowed with any consequential relief permissible under the law.