2000 (3) TMI 460 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-debit of Central Excise duty on goods supplied to Government departments.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine.
3. Imposition of penalty for non-maintenance of statutory records.
4. Confiscation of goods seized in transit from the truck.
5. Confiscation of the truck without proper notice to the owner.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the non-debit of Central Excise duty on goods supplied to Government departments, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation of goods and demanding duty on past clearances. The Appellate Tribunal found that although proper invoices were issued, the duty was not debited in the required registers, constituting a contravention of various CEX Rules. The Tribunal ordered the confiscation of seized goods and imposed a penalty under Rule 173Q on the assessee.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order for payment of duty and reduced the redemption fine imposed on the seized goods and the truck. The decision was based on the requirement of issuing a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation before imposing redemption fine. The Commissioner justified the confiscation of goods not accounted for in the factory premises and upheld the penalty imposed for improper record-keeping.

3. The appellants raised various grounds, including the excess stock found in the factory, the proprietor's medical emergency, and the duty payment discrepancies. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments and legal precedents related to non-compliance with record-keeping requirements. It concluded that confiscation under Rule 173Q required proof of intent to evade duty, which was not established in this case. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods from the factory and reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants.

4. The Tribunal addressed the issue of confiscation of goods seized in transit from the truck, noting that the Show Cause Notice did not propose confiscation for these goods. Therefore, the confiscation order was deemed beyond the scope of the notice and was set aside. Additionally, the confiscation of the truck without proper notice to the owner was considered unlawful, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation and redemption fine related to the truck.

5. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed based on the detailed analysis of each issue, including the non-debit of duty, confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, and procedural irregularities in confiscation orders related to the truck and seized goods. The Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the legal requirements and consequences of non-compliance with Central Excise rules and procedures.