1999 (6) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods by the Department
- Alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules
- Ownership of seized goods disputed
- Claim of renting out premises to other firms

Confiscation of Goods:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal directing the confiscation of 30 drums of Menthol and 8 drums of DMO by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ghaziabad. The officers detected unaccounted storage of these goods during a visit to the manufacturing factory. The Department alleged contravention of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and asked the appellants to show cause against action under Rule 173Q.

Alleged Contravention of Rules:
The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, who ruled against the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original, leading to the present appeal. The appellants claimed that the seized goods actually belonged to two other firms renting part of their licensed premises. However, the Additional Commissioner rejected the claims of these firms based on various grounds, including lack of evidence and failure to produce necessary documents.

Disputed Ownership of Seized Goods:
The appellants argued that the confiscated goods belonged to firms renting part of their premises, namely M/s. Laxmi Trading Corpn. and M/s. Bhagat Impex Pvt. Ltd. They presented statements and affidavits supporting their claim, but the authorities found insufficient evidence to prove ownership. The adjudicating authority noted discrepancies in the appellants' submissions and rejected the claims made by the other firms, leading to the confirmation of the confiscation order.

Renting Out Premises Dispute:
The appellants contended that they had rented out part of their premises to the other firms, supporting their claim with a letter dated 13-7-91. However, the tribunal found no concrete evidence in the letter to substantiate the claim of renting out the premises. Despite the appellants' arguments, including references to documents and statements, the tribunal concluded that the Department had proven the allegations in the show cause notice. As a result, the impugned order was confirmed, and the appeal was rejected.