2005 (12) TMI 34 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise - Detention of goods - Detention order issued for recovery of interest and balance amount of penalty when entire duty and 50% penalty had already been paid - Detention order lifted

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods and attachment of plant & machinery by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Legality of the actions taken by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Compliance with the provisions of law regarding coercive steps by the Department when a stay application is pending before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed an appeal along with a stay petition, but before the Tribunal could hear the stay petition, the Assistant Commissioner issued a Detention Order for the attachment of plant & machinery and detaining the goods. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants argued that the Assistant Commissioner's actions were high-handed and not supported by law. He highlighted that the entire duty and 50% of the penalty had already been paid, making the detention of goods and machinery unjust and against the citizen's fundamental rights. He referenced court decisions and circulars advising against coercive steps by the Department when a stay application is pending.

2. The Senior Departmental Representative defended the Assistant Commissioner's actions, stating that the revenue needed to be recovered. However, the Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, found the Assistant Commissioner's actions to be high-handed and unjustified. The Tribunal noted that most of the penalty amount had already been paid, and the remaining balance was relatively small. It was mentioned that the Tribunal typically does not require full pre-deposit of the penalty amount, especially when a significant portion has already been paid. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the Assistant Commissioner's actions inappropriate and allowed the miscellaneous application. The stay application was scheduled for a hearing, and the Revenue was directed to lift the detention order immediately and refrain from taking coercive steps until the stay application was resolved.

3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles. By directing the Revenue to lift the detention order and not take coercive steps, the Tribunal ensured that the appellants' rights were protected during the pendency of the stay application. The judgment emphasized the need for balance between revenue recovery and safeguarding the rights of the parties involved in legal proceedings. The Tribunal's ruling served as a reminder of the legal safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary actions by authorities and to uphold the principles of natural justice and due process.