Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2009 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (7) TMI 1059 - AT - Central Excise

In the appellate tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD case of Ms. Archana Wadhwa, the appeals of M/s. Sunrise Metal Industries, M/s. Sunmet Industries, and M/s. Dhuleva Metal Corporation were disposed of in a common order. The appeals related to the confiscation of Indian Currency of Rs. 4 lakhs by DGCEI officers during a search of the factory premises and common office of the companies. The currency was seized on suspicion of being the sale proceeds of imported copper ingots diverted enroute. The lower authorities confiscated the currency and imposed penalties based on the assumption that the currency was indeed the sale proceeds of the diverted goods.

After considering arguments from both sides, it was found that investigations into the diversion of imported goods were still pending. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the currency in question was likely the sale proceeds of the diverted copper ingots and wires. The learned advocate representing the appellants contended that the confiscation of the currency was unjustified as the investigations were ongoing and the claim made by the Administrative and Finance Controller of the trading unit was not properly considered.

The tribunal agreed that the investigations were still pending and by confiscating the currency, the lower authorities had prematurely decided the case. Citing precedent judgments, it was concluded that the Revenue failed to produce evidence showing that the currency was the consideration for the sale of the diverted material. As there was no evidence of any sale or purchase of the imported raw material, the requirements of Section 121 were not met, justifying the confiscation of the currency and imposition of penalties. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and all the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. The judgment was pronounced in court on 16th July 2009.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates