1992 (6) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, levying a fine in lieu of confiscation of a lorry under relevant sections of the Customs Act and Central Excises & Salt Act.
- Dispute regarding the imposition of the fine based on the absence of a properly dated gate pass for transporting goods.
- Allegation under Section 110 of the Customs Act and Section 12 of the Central Excises & Salt Act.
- Consideration of whether the lorry owner should be penalized for the absence of the lorry number or correct date on the gate pass despite the goods having suffered duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, which imposed a fine in place of confiscating a lorry under relevant sections of the Customs Act and Central Excises & Salt Act. The appellant contended that the fine was imposed due to the absence of a properly dated gate pass for transporting goods on a specific date. It was argued that the goods had indeed suffered duty, as confirmed by the Tribunal in a previous order. The goods were kept in the manufacturing premises for customer inspection, leading to a delay in their removal, which was the reason behind the discrepancy in the gate pass. The appellant emphasized that the lorry owner was not complicit in any offense, as there was no evidence of wrongdoing on their part. The appellant sought to set aside the order based on these grounds.

During the hearing, the learned SDR presented the respondent's arguments. The Tribunal considered the admitted facts that the goods in the lorry had indeed undergone central excise duty, with proper entries made in statutory registers by the manufacturer. The delay in removing the goods was due to customer inspection, as acknowledged in a previous Tribunal order. The Tribunal noted that the lorry owner had taken precautions to ensure duty payment for the goods. The absence of the lorry number or correct date on the gate pass was not deemed sufficient to justify confiscation of the lorry under the relevant legal provisions. Given the penal nature of the proceedings, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the lack of evidence indicating knowledge or intent to commit an offense. The technical lapse at the manufacturer's end further supported setting aside the impugned order, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.