1992 (1) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for transporting goods without proper documentation and fictitious consignor details.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellants, engaged in transport business, appealed against a penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise for transporting goods without proper documentation. The goods were detained near Calcutta, and the appellants had no knowledge of the excisability or duty payment status of the goods. They applied for provisional release for some goods, and the deposited amount was attached as redemption fine.

2. The appellants argued that the Collector alleged deliberate booking of goods with fictitious details, but failed to consider similar cases where penalties were dropped. The appellants highlighted that certain rules cited were not applicable to their case, emphasizing that goods in the market are presumed duty paid as per established judgments.

3. The appellants contended that the subsequent act of applying for provisional release cannot be the basis for confiscation. They cited various cases supporting their position and argued that there must be a link between goods and manufacturer for duty liability. The appellants were penalized under Rule 209A, which requires knowledge or reason to believe goods are liable to confiscation.

4. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellants knew the consignees' details, took provisional release, but did not disclose this information earlier, indicating mala fide intentions. The representative supported the penalty imposition, emphasizing the appellants' knowledge of consignees' details.

5. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument that they were wrongly proceeded against under rules applicable to factory removals. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of the appellants' involvement in non-duty paid goods transport with knowledge. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal emphasized that goods in the market are presumed duty paid, relieving the appellants of the onus to verify duty payment status.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition was unjustified as the appellants had no knowledge of the goods' non-duty paid nature. The fictitious consignor details did not implicate the transporters, and their act of accepting goods for transport did not establish guilt. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the penalty order unsustainable, allowing the appeal and granting consequential reliefs to the appellants.