2004 (11) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposition and confiscation of seized goods.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the penalty imposed and cross-objections by the Revenue challenging the setting aside of the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of redemption fine by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Central Excise Officers intercepted a tempo loaded with 'Coated Fabrics' manufactured by the appellants, revealing discrepancies in duty payment. Subsequently, excess stock was found in the factory premises leading to confiscation and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and redemption fine but upheld the penalty.

The counsel argued that the duty was debited before the show cause notice, suggesting a technical lapse that should be ignored. Reference was made to Central Excise Manual provisions and legal precedents. The Judge noted the intentional evasion of duty by the appellants, emphasizing the clandestine removal of goods without proper invoicing. The Judge rejected the argument that the lapse was minor and upheld the confiscation of goods.

Regarding the excess stock confiscation, the Judge found the Commissioner's decision to set it aside erroneous, given the admission of non-accountal by the company secretary. The redemption fine imposition after provisional release was deemed legally sound based on a Supreme Court judgment, contrary to the counsel's argument.

In terms of penalty imposition, legal precedents were cited to differentiate the case from others where penalties were not upheld. The Judge found the penalty justified due to the clandestine removal of goods and lack of voluntary duty payment by the appellants. The Commissioner's decision on penalty was upheld.

In conclusion, the Judge set aside the Commissioner's order on confiscation and redemption fine, restoring the adjudicating authority's decision. However, the penalty imposed on the appellants was upheld. The appeal by the appellants was dismissed, and the Revenue's Cross-Objections were accepted.