Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1999 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (9) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Violation of provisions of Central Excise Rules regarding unaccounted V.P. Sugar bags, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of redemption fee and penalty, Legality of confiscation and redemption fee when goods not available for confiscation, Imposition of penalty on corporate body. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order upholding confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fee and penalty. The appellants, engaged in V.P. Sugar manufacturing, were found with unaccounted bags in their factory. The Chief Chemist's explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, leading to a show cause notice for violation of various Rules. The Assistant Commissioner ordered confiscation of 1132 bags with a redemption fee of Rs. 25,000, in addition to duty payment and appropriation of bond amount towards duty. The order was challenged in appeal but was unsuccessful, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal. The Commissioner's findings regarding the unaccounted bags were not disputed during the hearing. The appellants had brought in bags for re-processing but some were dispatched without duty payment, with 1132 bags left unaccounted in the factory. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) on this matter. The appellants were rightly asked to pay the duty, and the appropriated amount was deemed correct. However, a legal contention was raised regarding confiscation and redemption fee when goods were not available for confiscation post-release. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal set aside the order to that extent. The penalty imposed on the appellants was also addressed, with the Counsel requesting a reduction due to lack of malicious intent. The penalty amount was reduced to Rs. 10,000 considering the circumstances. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the duty payment but setting aside the order regarding confiscation and redemption fee when goods were no longer available for confiscation. The penalty amount was reduced as requested due to the lack of malicious intent on the part of the corporate body.
|