2013 (11) TMI 1143 - AT - Central Excise

Suppression of goods Clandestine removal of goods Goods were confiscated Redemption fine and penalty imposed Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that - Assessee contended that they have not redeemed the goods so far and goods continued to be in the custody of department - under Section 35 F of Central Excise Act, in case the goods are under the control of Central Excise authorities, waiver can be granted to the appellants for depositing duty, interest and penalty here also, goods seized and confiscated are under the control of department - Pre-deposits waived till the disposal stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Stay applications against imposition of penalties by Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise.

Analysis:
1. Allegations and Seizure: The case involved Shri Giriraj Jee Office Systems accused of suppressing production and removing goods clandestinely to evade duty. Multiple firms were operating within the same premises. Searches conducted led to the seizure of finished goods and raw material. The Assistant Commissioner confiscated the seized goods and imposed a redemption fine and penalty on the appellants, which was partially reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise.

2. Appellant's Submission: The appellant's advocate argued that the goods were not redeemed and remained in the custody of the department. He contended that since the goods were confiscated and with the department, there were grounds for waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of dues.

3. Department's Position: The Departmental Representative (DR) maintained that the confiscation and penalties imposed were justified as the goods were seized during visits to various premises where firms were allegedly created to evade duty payments.

4. Legal Consideration and Decision: The Tribunal, per Sahab Singh, referred to Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, which allows for waiver of depositing duty, interest, and penalty if goods are under the control of Central Excise authorities. Given that the seized and confiscated goods were under the department's control, the Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery of penalties until the appeals were disposed of.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with excise laws, the authority to confiscate goods, and the provision for waiver in certain circumstances. The decision to grant a stay against recovery of penalties showcases the Tribunal's consideration of the specific facts and legal provisions in the case.