2020 (2) TMI 1010 - AT - Central Excise

Service of notice - raw-material was received in the factory premises of M/s. Shree Om Wires Pvt. Ltd. without proper invoice/ documents, which were found issued in the name of entity other than that of the said unit - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - It stands clear on record that penalty against the present appellant stands already waived. Hence, there seems no reason to still be aggrieved about imposition of penalty. It is further observed that in para 7 of the Order-in Appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has already formed an opinion that the job worked material i.e. 8839 Kgs. as per the job challan could not have been loaded in the said vehicles. Otherwise also, there was no evidence regarding the readiness of job worked material to be transported to the principal manufacturer. Hence it cannot be said that the job worked material was indeed ready to be dispatched. It is on this basis that the Order-in-Original was modified. The appellant was under bonafide understanding about no duty liability on his part on amount of subsidy by including it in the transaction value. Thus, even the order of confiscating the Truck, however, permitting redemption thereof is also not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Non-prosecution by the Appellant, Confiscation of Goods, Imposition of Penalty

Non-prosecution by the Appellant:
The judgment addresses the issue of non-prosecution by the Appellant. The Appellant failed to appear since the appeal was filed, leading to the Department being directed to serve notice, which was unsuccessful. The lack of interest from the Appellant indicates non-prosecution, as confirmed by the absence of any response. The judgment highlights the responsibility of the Appellant to pursue the appeal actively.

Confiscation of Goods:
The case involves the confiscation of goods transported without proper documentation. The Preventive Branch of Central Excise Division received intelligence about vehicles carrying copper rods to be unloaded at a different location than stated in the documents. Upon examination, it was found that the raw material was received without proper invoices or documents, leading to a show cause notice proposing confiscation and penalties against multiple parties. The Order-in-Original confirmed the proposal, but subsequent modifications were made based on the findings. The judgment reviews the evidence and concludes that the Appellant's penalty had already been waived in a previous order, rendering the appeal on penalty unjustified. The judgment also questions the sustainability of the confiscation order, citing a bonafide misunderstanding regarding duty liability and subsidy inclusion in transaction value.

Imposition of Penalty:
Regarding the imposition of penalties, the judgment notes that penalties on the Appellant and other co-noticees were waived in previous orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already determined discrepancies in the job worked material and lack of evidence for its readiness to be dispatched. The judgment emphasizes the bonafide interpretation of duty provisions by both the Department and the Appellant, leading to a conclusion that the noticed shortcomings were due to genuine misunderstandings. Ultimately, the judgment sets aside the order under challenge, allowing the appeal in favor of the Appellant based on the detailed analysis of the facts and legal interpretations presented.