9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (9) TMI 23 - AT - Central ExciseCentral Excise Goods removed clandestinely and seized at very odd hours form the highway Goods were released provisionally under bond with bank guarantee Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation in terms of bond is not irregular Penalty imposed on Manager as that he had specific and significant role in clandestine removal Order upheld
Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original confirming duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. Analysis: The case involved appeals by a company and its manager against an order confirming duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. The facts revealed that excisable goods were intercepted without proper documents, leading to the seizure of brass pipes and a truck. The manager admitted to the clandestine removal of goods without paying Central Excise duty. The seized goods were provisionally released upon execution of a bond with a bank guarantee. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed duty demand, ordered confiscation of goods, imposed fines, and penalties on the manager. One of the arguments raised was the alleged antedating of the show cause notice, but it was found unsubstantiated. The appellants contended that since duty was paid before the notice, no penalty should be imposed. They also argued that the manager should not be separately penalized based on a precedent. However, the Tribunal found the manager's involvement in the clandestine removal established, justifying the penalty. The goods were seized near a highway, and the manager's admission of knowledge and intention supported the penalty imposition. Regarding the provisional release of goods and the imposition of fines in lieu of confiscation, the Tribunal upheld the decision. The goods were seized under suspicious circumstances and provisionally released with a bond. Upholding the fine in lieu of confiscation was deemed necessary to maintain the integrity of the provisional release procedure. Therefore, the appeals were rejected, and the original order was upheld.
|
