9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while conducting transit checks at Kalpi Road, Orai at 4.45 hours on 29-11-2000, intercepted three trucks bearing Registration No. UTK/2524, UP 78 R/5572 and UHH/1153 loaded with MS ingots. The truck drivers produced 3 invoices/bill Nos. 00950, 00951 and 00952 respectively all dated 29-11-2000 issued by M/s. Raj International, Orai along with respective builty Nos. 28, 29 and 30 all dated 29-11-2000 issued by M/s. R.K. Road Lines, Orai showing consigner as M/s. Raj International, Orai. 3. Statements of truck drivers were recorded on 29-11-2000 and they stated that they were not aware of the godown of M/s. Raj International. They had loaded the goods from the factory of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Orai and they have only the challa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Jhansi. He found that the seized M.S. ingots were cleared in the three trucks without the issue of Central Excise invoice with an intent to evade payment of duty and held the goods liable for confiscation. He ordered confiscation of the seized quantity of M.S. ingots but allowed these to be redeemed on a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. He imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (d) of Central Excise Rules. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on Shri Saurav Jain, Director of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys Ltd. under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, besides imposing penalty on other concerned persons. He also confiscated the seized trucks and allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Saurav Jain was neither concerned with the removal of goods nor had any knowledge or reason to believe that the goods in question were liable to confiscation. It was stated that penalty is imposed on the assessee for some contumenous conduct or a violation of section of particular statute. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Processors v. UOI [1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.)] and it was pleaded that no penalty is imposable on Shri Jain. 8. The departmental representative for Revenue pleaded that the lower authorities have correctly confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on both the appellants as the goods were cleared without payment of Central Excise duty from the manufacturing unit and wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the factory or the authorized agent. In the present case, when the goods were intercepted, it was found that no invoice was accompanying the goods showing payment of duty. Thus, violation of Section 52A is clearly established. Since no invoice book and other record was available in the factory when the officers visited, it shows that no duty there was paid on clearance of the goods from the factory. Therefore, violation of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules is also established. Therefore, these goods were cleared from the factory of M/s. Bundelkhand Alloys without payment of duty and these are liable for confiscation under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The goods were therefore, correctly confiscated. The redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
