2014 (2) TMI 10 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Commissioner set aside confiscation and penalty - Held that - confiscation of finished goods is not in consonance with the law, I set aside the order of confiscation of goods valued at ₹ 42,58,607/- and consequentially the redemption fine of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs only) is dropped. Penalty imposed on the Appellant under Rule 25 is also not warranted and same is also set aside. But at the same time I find that the Appellant had violated the provisions of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 for which they are liable to penalized under Rule 27. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already imposed penalty of ₹ 5000/- on the respondent for non-maintenance of proper records. In the absence of any evidence to show that the goods were not entered in the RG-I register with a mala fide intention to remove the same, I am of the view that the confiscation of the same has rightly been set aside by the appellate authority - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of excess found goods and penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Confiscation of Goods:
The case involved the confiscation of aluminum alloy ingots valued at Rs. 42.58 lakhs, which were not entered in the statutory records of the manufacturer. The officers seized the goods on suspicion of clandestine clearance. The Joint Commissioner confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation, considering factors such as the goods being untested for quality control, issues with the spectrometer, and the absence of evidence indicating intent to evade duty. The Commissioner held that mere non-accountal of goods in records is insufficient to establish an intention for clandestine removal.

Penalty Imposition:
The appellant was penalized under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules by the Joint Commissioner. However, the penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the lack of evidence showing the goods were being removed clandestinely or without payment of duty. The Commissioner imposed a reduced penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 27 for a violation of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the Revenue's appeal as they failed to provide evidence to rebut the findings or demonstrate mala fide intention in the non-entry of goods in the records. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the decision to set aside the confiscation and penalty under Rule 25.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, confirming the setting aside of the confiscation of goods and the penalty under Rule 25, while upholding the imposition of a reduced penalty under Rule 27. The judgment emphasized the necessity of sufficient evidence to establish intent for clandestine removal and highlighted the importance of proper record maintenance in excise matters.