9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So, the confiscation of the goods from the premises of the purchaser is justified. Penalties - Held that: - There is no record that the purchaser had any knowledge, that the duty and cess were not paid on the raw-coal. In other words, it appears that the appellants purchased the goods under the cover of Central Excise Invoice. So, imposition of penalty on the appellants is not justified. Section 34 provides that whenever confiscation is adjudged under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, the Officers adjudging it should give the owners of the goods option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine, as the Officer thinks fit. So, the Adjudicating Authority should have exercised the discretion to give option to pay fine as provided under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also submitted written statement with case laws. It is submitted that the appellants purchased the coal from the open market i.e. from the suppliers of coal rather than manufacturers/producers. It is also submitted that the Central Excise Officers seized the coal lying in the factory premises of the appellants on the assumption that no Central Excise Duty and Clean Energy Cess was paid by the producers/manufacturers. It is also submitted that it is well settled that the goods purchased from the open market would be treated as duty paid and confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty are not sustainable. It is further more submitted that the Adjudicating Authority should have given the owner of the goods option to pay fine in lieu o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Duty and Clean Energy Cess. So, the confiscation of the goods from the premises of the purchaser is justified. But, the allegation of collusion between the purchaser and the producer is without any basis. I do not find any material on record that the purchaser had any knowledge, that the duty and cess were not paid on the raw-coal. In other words, it appears that the appellants purchased the goods under the cover of Central Excise Invoice. So, imposition of penalty on the appellants is not justified. 7. I find force in the submission of the ld. Counsels that the fine should be imposed in lieu of confiscation as provided under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 34 provides that whenever confiscation is adjudged under this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
