2017 (1) TMI 1173 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - seized goods were provisionally released and were present in the premises of EOU - the adjudicating authority has wrongly mentioned in the order that the goods were not produced at the time of adjudication - Held that - There is a factual dispute raised by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal to the extent that the goods were available in the factory of the respondent at the time of adjudication, amongst others. In my considered view, the factual aspect as raised by the Reveneue is required to be verified by the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods and vehicle
2. Imposition of redemption fine and recovery of customs duty
3. Recovery of interest and imposition of penalties
4. Appeal against the Order-in-Original

Confiscation of imported goods and vehicle:
The respondent, a 100% EOU, had goods intercepted by DRI officers, leading to the seizure of imported silk fabric of Chinese origin. The ld. Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the goods and the vehicle under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods and vehicle were not produced at the time of adjudication, a redemption fine was imposed in lieu of confiscation. The respondent did not appear, and a factual dispute arose regarding the availability of goods in the factory at the time of adjudication, requiring further verification by the adjudicating authority.

Imposition of redemption fine and recovery of customs duty:
The ld. Commissioner imposed a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods and vehicle. Additionally, the order directed the recovery of total customs duty foregone in respect of the imported goods from another entity. Furthermore, an amount deposited by the EOU towards customs duty was adjusted accordingly. The order also included the recovery of interest as per the exemption notification and imposed penalties under specific sections of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Noticee.

Recovery of interest and imposition of penalties:
The order included the recovery of interest as per the exemption notification and imposed penalties under Sections 112 & 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Noticee. The Revenue raised grounds of appeal, challenging the correctness and legality of the Order-in-Original, citing failures by the adjudicating authority in mentioning the provisional release of seized goods and vehicle against a bond. The appeal also contested the imposition of penalties under both sections, arguing against the simultaneous application of penalties under Section 112 & 114A.

Appeal against the Order-in-Original:
The Revenue's appeal was allowed by way of remand, with directions for the adjudicating authority to examine the grounds raised by the Revenue. The adjudicating authority was instructed to verify the factual aspects, especially regarding the availability of goods in the factory at the time of adjudication, and provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent before passing a new order.