2013 (5) TMI 65 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of unaccounted goods/raw material - Accordingly imposition of duty, penalty interest on those goods - Held that - there being no dispute that goods being sought to be confiscated is raw material, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and division bench of this Tribunal in case of Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (8) TMI 200 would clearly apply in this case which is in favour of the appellant. - Demand set aside.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellant upheld by the first appellate authority.
2. Interpretation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding confiscation of excisable goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order upholding the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellant by the first appellate authority. The appellant, an SSI unit manufacturing M.S. hot rolled bars, faced confiscation of 4 old and used plates valued at Rs.5,50,450, along with duty demand and penalties under various sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first appellate authority set aside the duty demand but upheld the confiscation and penalties. However, the Tribunal found that the confiscation of raw materials under Rule 25 is not permissible as settled by previous judgments. The Tribunal cited precedents like Bharat Steel Rolling Mills and Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that confiscation of raw materials is not allowed under Rule 25.

2. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 25 concerning the confiscation of excisable goods. The Tribunal noted that Rule 25 applies to finished excisable goods from manufacturers, warehousers, or registered dealers. The Tribunal referred to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's decision in Annapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd., stating that confiscation of raw materials not accounted for is not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal highlighted that the goods in question were raw materials for consumption by the appellant, duly duty paid, and not subject to confiscation under Rule 25. Additionally, the Tribunal cited the case of Anchal Prints Pvt. Ltd., where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, further supporting the appellant's position.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of confiscation and penalties upheld by the first appellate authority, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the inapplicability of Rule 25 for confiscating raw materials and aligned with previous judicial pronouncements on the matter.