2006 (3) TMI 29 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise - Clandestine removal - Appellants send loaded truck outside for weighment without permission - Penalty and confiscation upheld

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order setting aside penalty imposed on respondents for non-accounting of goods in RG I Register.

Analysis:
The case involved the interception of a truck carrying iron and steel products without proper documents by Central Excise Officers. The driver confirmed the lack of documents, and subsequent checks revealed that the goods seized were not duly accounted for in the RG I Register. The Authorised Signatory of the appellants admitted to the lapse and provided details of the events surrounding the interception, including the preparation of a road Challan and a weigh bridge certificate. The weigh bridge certificate indicated the vehicle number matching the seized truck, with a delay attributed to loading heavy items at the factory.

The Revenue representative reiterated the observations in the Order-in-Original, emphasizing the absence of the road Challan with the intercepted truck. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel argued that the weigh bridge certificate from the same date proved the truck's trip for weighment and loading heavy items at the factory. The respondents acknowledged a technical lapse in not informing the department promptly but highlighted their compliance with necessary procedures post-incident.

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal acknowledged the technical lapse by the respondents but noted the absence of any deliberate attempt to evade duty payment. The penalty imposed in the Order-in-Original was reduced from Rs. 44,495 to Rs. 10,000 due to the technical lapse. However, the redemption fine of Rs. 75,000 was maintained as no reasons were found to alter its quantum. The appeal by the Revenue was disposed of accordingly, and a Cross Objection filed by another party was also resolved in line with the main judgment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the technical lapse by reducing the penalty while maintaining the redemption fine, considering the circumstances of the case and the absence of deliberate evasion. The judgment balanced the acknowledgment of errors by the respondents with the imposition of a reduced penalty to rectify the non-compliance with necessary procedures.