1997 (1) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Seizure and confiscation of goods due to lack of duty paying documents with the driver during transportation.
- Allegations of discrepancies in weighment and documentation by the appellants.
- Legal justification for the confiscation and penalty imposed by the lower authorities.

Analysis:
The case involved the interception of a truck loaded with MS angles on a highway by Central Excise officers. The driver presented documents from a steel company and a transport company, claiming the goods were loaded at the appellants' factory. However, upon investigation, the factory was found closed, leading to the seizure of the goods under suspicion of liability to confiscation. The appellants explained that they lacked a weighment bridge, so the goods were sent for accurate weighment, resulting in the cancellation of initial documents and the issuance of revised ones. The authorities confiscated the goods, imposed a fine, and levied a personal penalty.

The main contention raised by the appellants was the absence of duty paying documents with the driver during the first leg of the journey. The appellants clarified that the documents were handed over to the representative of a steel company, who further sold the goods to another entity. They argued that the cancellation and reissuance of documents were due to the variance in actual weight post-weighment. The appellants emphasized that the transaction details were corroborated by the investigation at the steel company's premises, supporting their version of events.

In response, the respondent Commissioner contended that the lack of initial documents with the driver indicated an afterthought, and immediate verification was hindered by the factory closure during the interception. The respondent supported the lower authorities' decision of confiscation and penalty imposition, citing the absence of duty paying documents during transportation.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the appellants' explanation regarding the duty payment to be logical and supported by evidence from the steel company's records. The Tribunal noted that the factory records were accessible the next day, revealing no significant discrepancies apart from the document cancellation. The Tribunal highlighted the presence of the steel company representative during the transaction and the lack of incriminating evidence during investigations, leading to the conclusion that the confiscation and penalty were unjustified.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty, deeming them illegal. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants as per the law. The decision emphasized the importance of thorough investigations and logical explanations in excise duty cases to prevent unwarranted confiscations and penalties.