2003 (12) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants are justified?
2. Whether the confiscation of goods and redemption fine imposed are appropriate?
3. Whether the penalties on the Clerk and the Manager are valid?

Analysis:
1. The case involved a situation where a truck carrying copper scrap was intercepted, and discrepancies were found in the documentation. The appellants argued that since the duty had been deposited prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice (SCN), and no clear invocation of Section 11A(1) proviso was present in the notice, the duty demand made in the SCN was not required due to the insertion of sub-section (2B) to Section 11A. The Tribunal agreed, stating that no further duty demand was necessary as duties were already discharged. Consequently, the penalty under Section 11AC was set aside based on this reasoning.

2. The confiscation of goods exceeding the documented quantity was upheld, and a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000 was confirmed. The Tribunal found that the goods were liable for confiscation due to the improper determination and discharge of duty before removal, which the Clerk and the Manager failed to ensure. Therefore, the confiscation and redemption fine were deemed appropriate in this context.

3. Regarding the penalties imposed on the Clerk and the Manager, the Tribunal affirmed the penalties, noting that as individuals in charge of the assessee's affairs, they were responsible for ensuring the proper determination and discharge of duty. Their failure to do so rendered the goods liable for confiscation, justifying the penalties under the Central Excise Rules. The specific roles played by the Clerk and the Manager were highlighted by the Adjudicator, leading to the confirmation of the penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed Appeal No. E/2548 only in relation to the penalty under Section 11AC, while dismissing Appeal Nos. E/2549 and E/2550. The duty demand was found unjustified due to prior deposit, but the confiscation of goods and penalties on the Clerk and the Manager were upheld based on their roles and responsibilities in the matter.