2006 (6) TMI 51 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Confiscation Trucks drivers transporting the M.S. ingots stating that goods were loaded from the factory of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys (P) Ltd But the documents produced for these goods were the bills of another Goods transported without payment of duty Redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys P Ltd

Summary

Issues:
Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, violation of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
The case involved the interception of three trucks loaded with MS ingots, accompanied by invoices from a different company than the consignor. The truck drivers claimed they loaded the goods from a different factory, leading to suspicion of duty evasion. Upon investigation, show cause notices were issued to the company and its director for contravening Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the matter, ordering confiscation of the goods and imposing fines and penalties on the company and its director.

The appeals filed by the company and its director were heard by the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and penalties. Despite multiple adjournments and non-appearance of the appellants, the case proceeded based on the evidence and grounds presented.

The company argued that duty had been paid to the consignor and that penalties were not warranted. They cited a Supreme Court decision and contended that no penalty should be imposed on the director. However, the departmental representative argued that the goods were cleared without payment of duty, as evidenced by the lack of records at the factory and the mismatch in invoices.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the goods were indeed cleared without payment of duty, violating Central Excise Rules. The lack of accompanying invoices and records at the factory supported this conclusion. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods, the redemption fine, and the penalties imposed on the company and its director.

Regarding the director's liability, it was determined that he had knowledge of the goods being cleared without payment of duty, making him liable for penalties under Rule 209. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cited Supreme Court decision, emphasizing the violation of rules leading to penal action.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, concluding that the goods were cleared without payment of duty, justifying the confiscation, fines, and penalties imposed on the company and its director.