1987 (6) TMI 159 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty and proper documentation.
2. Contravention of Central Excise Rules 9(1), 52A, and 173G.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty and proper documentation.
The case involved a surprise visit to the factory where a tanker loaded with Vinyl Acetate Monomer (VAM) was found near the exit gate without proper documentation or payment of Central Excise duty. The authorities alleged that the goods were removed without following the required procedures, leading to a show cause notice being issued to the appellants.

Issue 2: Contravention of Central Excise Rules 9(1), 52A, and 173G.
The appellant argued that the truck was still within the factory premises at the weigh-bridge when the goods were found, and the gate pass could only be prepared after the weight of the VAM was ascertained. The appellant contended that the authorities failed to consider the panchnama, which indicated the truck's location as "at weigh-bridge near the gate," suggesting that the truck was inside the factory. The appellant also highlighted the inapplicability of a previous court decision cited by the adjudicating authority to the current case's circumstances.

Issue 3: Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants.
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, held that there was no contravention of Central Excise Rules in the case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of reading the rules in conjunction and concluded that duty is required to be paid when goods are removed from the factory, not merely from the storeroom within the factory. As the truck was still within the factory premises, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation of goods and truck, as well as the imposition of penalties on the appellants.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed in favor of the two appellants, providing them with consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the factual and legal aspects of the case, emphasizing the proper interpretation of Central Excise Rules in determining the alleged contraventions.