2018 (5) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - case of assessee is that the manufacture of the said goods have been recorded in the Daily Stock Account (DSA) and transfer of same at M/s Goldcoin Plyplast, is due to shortage of space - Confiscation - penalty - Held that - It is not in dispute that the appellant vide their letter dt 21.1.2014 has informed the jurisdictional Range of Superintendent, Central Excise, about their intention to store the said 1365 boxes of food containers at the premises of their sister concern at M/s Goldcoin Polyplast. There was no response to the said intimation letter by the Dept. denying the permission/storage of the said finished goods in the premises of M/s Goldscoin Polyplast. Confiscation and penalty not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods stored in sister concern's premises due to shortage of space.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant and the Director.
3. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax regarding the confiscation of 1365 cartons of finished goods stored in the sister concern's premises due to space constraints. The appellant had informed the authorities about the storage in writing, stating the shortage of space in their factory. The goods were seized and a show cause notice was issued for confiscation. The Commissioner partially allowed the appeals by reducing the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant contended that there was no suppression of facts as they had duly informed the department about the storage.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties were unjustified as there was no suppression of facts. The Revenue's authorized representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. The appellate tribunal noted that the appellant had informed the jurisdictional Range of Superintendent about storing the goods at the sister concern's premises in writing, and there was no response from the department denying permission for storage. Therefore, the tribunal held that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties were not legally sustainable.

3. Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the impugned order of confiscation and penalties, allowing the appeals with consequential relief as per the law. The decision was based on the lack of response from the department to the appellant's intimation about storing the goods at the sister concern's premises, indicating that the confiscation and penalties were unjust and not supported by law. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper communication and response from the authorities in such cases to avoid unjust confiscation and penalties.