2005 (10) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of lower appellate authority regarding confiscation and penalty imposition without intent to evade payment of duty under Rule 173Q(1)(b).

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was filed by the Revenue challenging the lower appellate authority's decision that the impugned goods were not liable to confiscation and no penalty could be imposed due to the absence of evidence indicating intent to evade duty payment. The learned DR for the Department argued that under Rule 173Q(1)(b), intent to evade duty payment was not a prerequisite for penalty imposition. Upon review, the Member (T) observed that Rule 173Q(1)(b) allows for confiscation and penal action in cases of non-accountal of excisable goods, with intent to evade duty payment being a requirement under Rule 173Q(1)(d). The Tribunal noted the legislative intent to subject non-accountal of goods under the Self Removal Procedure to confiscation and penal action. Consequently, the Tribunal found the lower appellate authority's order to be legally flawed and set it aside. The order-in-original was reinstated with modifications, maintaining the redemption fine but reducing the penalty imposed on the respondent company.

Regarding the confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery, the Tribunal deemed it unwarranted in the circumstances of the case and set it aside. Notably, the impugned order concerning specific individuals remained unchanged as no separate appeal was filed by the Department nor were they served with any notice. Ultimately, the Department's appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, with the pronouncement made on 6-10-2005.