2009 (12) TMI 417 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and penalty- The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Reaction Vessels used in chemical industries. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant, which has culminated into the impugned order. In the impugned order, the seized goods i.e. 17,100/- kgs steel coils have been confiscated and ordered to be released on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of confiscation. Duty of Rs. 6 lakhs paid by the appellant in respect of clearances made on 20-10-06 has been appropriated (total amount paid was more than Rs. 24 lakhs). Further, a penalty of Rs. 6,00,005/- has also been imposed on the Company and a penalty on Shri Rakesh Panchal. Hence, the appeals. Held that- the appellants have contravened the provisions of Rule 25(c) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 when they moved the raw materials to Plot No. 1506 and under-took the manufacturing process and just because the materials have reached the semi-finished stage, they cannot claim that the same cannot be confiscated. Therefore, hold that the confiscation ordered by the lower authorities is in order and is required to be upheld. But take the lenient view about the penalty and fine. Thus, redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 60,000/- and penalty on the director is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-.

Summary

Issues:
Manufacture of Reaction Vessels in chemical industries, seizure of steel coils, provisional release, duty demand under Rule 25, penalty imposition, confiscation of goods, irregular manufacturing process, mitigating circumstances, reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seizure of Steel Coils and Provisional Release: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Reaction Vessels, had steel coils seized by officers when found manufacturing in a plot adjacent to their registered premises. They applied for provisional release, executed a bank guarantee, and cleared finished goods after the Commissioner's order for provisional release. Subsequently, a show cause notice led to the impugned order confiscating the seized goods and imposing penalties.

2. Duty Demand under Rule 25: The appellant argued that Rule 25 was incorrectly invoked as the seized goods were semi-finished, not excisable raw materials. The department failed to prove the goods' excisability status, leading to the duty demand being set aside. The penalty under Rule 25 and Section 11AC was also deemed unsustainable.

3. Confiscation of Goods: The Revenue contended that the seized semi-finished goods were excisable and subject to confiscation due to irregular manufacturing processes. The appellant's movement of raw materials to unregistered premises and subsequent manufacturing without proper authorization justified the confiscation. The appellant's intention to seek registration for the additional plot was considered a mitigating factor.

4. Mitigating Circumstances and Reduction of Penalties: Despite procedural violations, mitigating factors such as time-bound orders and the absence of misuse or diversion of raw materials influenced the tribunal's decision. The confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced due to the lenient view taken considering the circumstances and facts of the case.

5. Final Decision: The tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 60,000 and the penalty on the director to Rs. 25,000, acknowledging the mitigating factors and the reasonableness of the lower authorities. The appeals were decided in favor of the appellants with consequential relief granted.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the seizure, duty demand, confiscation, irregular manufacturing processes, mitigating circumstances, and the final decision to reduce penalties based on the specific facts and legal arguments presented during the proceedings.