2001 (1) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispensing with pre-deposit of penalty imposed on the appellants.
2. Confiscation of goods and vehicle under Central Excise Rules.
3. Admissibility of confessional statements without mandatory warning.
4. Lack of independent corroboration for charges.
5. Commissioner (Appeals) decision and reasoning.
6. Grant of stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalties.

Analysis:
1. The case involves two stay petitions filed by M/s. Suraj Containers Ltd. and the driver of the truck, challenging the penalty imposed under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalties were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal seeking dispensation with the pre-deposit of penalties.

2. The issue of confiscation of tin containers and the vehicle under Central Excise Rules arose due to discrepancies in the date on the invoices and challans during transportation. The adjudication resulted in the confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the Order-in-Original, prompting the appeal for stay.

3. The admissibility of confessional statements without a mandatory warning was contested by the appellants' representative, citing legal precedents. The absence of a warning, as required by Section 164(2) of the Cr. P.C., was highlighted to challenge the validity of the statements. Reference was made to judgments emphasizing the need for independent corroboration of such statements.

4. The lack of independent corroboration for the charges leveled against the appellants was a significant argument presented. The representative argued that the reliance on confessional statements without proper warning and supporting evidence rendered the confiscation of goods and the vehicle unlawful. The imposition of penalties was deemed unwarranted and unjustified.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was scrutinized for not fully discussing the arguments presented by the appellants. The representative contended that the order lacked a detailed consideration of the appellants' submissions, urging for a grant of stay and the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties based on procedural lapses and lack of proper assessment.

6. Upon careful consideration of the arguments from both sides and a review of the previous orders, the judge concluded that there was a lack of proper appreciation of facts leading to the impugned order. In the interest of justice, the judge granted an unconditional stay and waived the pre-deposit of penalties, scheduling the matter for further hearing.