1998 (12) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Pre-deposit of personal penalty under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944
- Confiscation of seized excisable goods without offering an option for redemption
- Request for physical stock-taking report during adjudication
- Failure to address submissions made by the appellant in the reply to the show cause notice
- Discretion of adjudicating authority in absolute confiscation versus redemption

Analysis:
1. Pre-deposit of Personal Penalty: The Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of a personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the Commissioner under Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This decision was made after hearing arguments from both sides and with the consent of the parties involved.

2. Confiscation of Seized Goods: The appellant argued that the Commissioner confiscated excisable goods worth Rs. 1,12,378 without providing an option for redemption as mandated by Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that the failure to offer such an option rendered the Commissioner's order legally flawed. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, emphasizing the mandatory nature of providing an option for redemption and held that the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

3. Request for Physical Stock-Taking Report: The appellant requested the physical stock-taking report during the adjudication process, which was not provided by the department. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner decided the case without addressing this request, which was crucial for the appellant's defense. The failure to provide the working sheet of the stock-taking report or notify the unavailability of such information was considered a procedural flaw, leading to the decision to remand the case for reevaluation.

4. Failure to Address Submissions: The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that the adjudicating authority did not adequately address the submissions and contentions raised by the appellant in response to the show cause notice. This failure to consider the appellant's arguments was deemed a violation of procedural fairness, necessitating a fresh adjudication of the case.

5. Discretion of Adjudicating Authority: The respondent argued that the absolute confiscation of seized goods was within the discretion of the adjudicating authority. However, the Tribunal sided with the appellant, emphasizing that the Commissioner should have provided an option for redeeming the goods on payment of a redemption fine as per the provisions of Section 34. This further supported the decision to remand the case for a new adjudication.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, highlighting procedural lapses, failure to address crucial requests, and the mandatory nature of providing an option for redemption in cases of confiscated goods.