9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 774 - AT - Central ExciseROM - confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery of a manufacturer Held that - As regards, the additional ground that the order is silent on the question of confiscation of plant and machinery and imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, we find that there is merit in the appellant s plea, as while in the appeal memo, the question of confiscation of plant and machinery has also been challenged, the final order passed by the Tribunal is silent about the same. However, for this omission there is no need to recall the final order and the same is being decided now. This is a case of evasion of duty by clearances of goods, in a clandestine manner without payment of duty and also by mis-declaring the MRP under the guise of exchange scheme and thereby contravening various provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and of the rules made thereunder, which attract penalty under Clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 173Q and as discussed above, the duty involved is more than ₹ 1,00,000/-. Confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery of the appellant company under Rule 173Q has been correctly ordered and looking to the nature of the offence, the quantum of redemption fine is not excessive. The same is accordingly upheld.
Issues:
Rectification of Mistakes in Tribunal's Final Order, Dismissal of Appeals, Confiscation of Plant and Machinery, Duty Demand, Imposition of Penalty, Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. Rectification of Mistakes in Tribunal's Final Order: The appellant filed an application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, claiming mistakes apparent from the record in the Tribunal's Final Order. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was silent on certain aspects, including the confiscation of plant and machinery and the levy of redemption fine. The Tribunal allowed the addition of a new paragraph in the application to address this issue. Dismissal of Appeals: The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order incorrectly dismissed appeals that were not listed for hearing. The Tribunal clarified that the appeals of M/s. MIRC Electronics Ltd. and Shri G.K. Mittal had already been dismissed in a previous order for non-prosecution. The Tribunal corrected certain errors in the order to reflect the accurate status of the appeals. Confiscation of Plant and Machinery, Duty Demand, Imposition of Penalty: The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalty against the appellant, rejecting the appellant's plea for rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, which was not the case here. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument regarding the silence on the confiscation of plant and machinery in the Tribunal's final order. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, considering the nature of the offense and the quantum of redemption fine. Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules: The Tribunal analyzed Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which provided for confiscation of assets in cases of duty evasion and contraventions. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's plea regarding the confiscation of plant and machinery, leading to the imposition of the redemption fine. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and the redemption fine, considering the seriousness of the offense. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) and miscellaneous applications, addressing the issues raised by the appellant regarding the Tribunal's final order, the dismissal of appeals, the confiscation of assets, duty demands, and penalties. The Tribunal clarified the status of the appeals and upheld the confiscation and redemption fine under Rule 173Q based on the nature of the offense.
|
