9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeds of the excisable goods which has been sold by the noticee without licit documents and without payment of duty - it is found that after giving this clear finding by the Adjudicating Authority, he should have passed an order for confiscation of the cash further no order on proposal of confiscation made in the show caused notice was passed by the Adjudicating Authority. At the same time the cash which was seized was adjudged against the duty, interest and 15% penalty. Therefore, there is an apparent error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, accordingly the Learned Commissioner (Appeal) instead of straightway confiscating seized cash should have remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant also raised the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal) is that though the Adjudicating Authority in his order explicitly given the finding that the seized amount of Rs. 50,73,110/- is liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 12 of Central Excise Act, 1944 the Adjudicating Authority has not confiscated the seized cash. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order in appeal the Appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Sarju Mehta, Learned Charted Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that before the Commissioner (Appeal). The Appellant had filed cross objection in the matter of department s appeal wherein, it was submitted that since the Appellant had paid the duty, interest and penalty equal to 15 percent of duty the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer Pvt. Ltd. 2.1 Without prejudice to his above submission, he also submits that as per the provision of Section 34 of the Act whenever confiscation is adjudged under the act or the rules made thereunder, the officer adjudging, he/she shall give the owner of the goods of the option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit. Therefore, if it all the officer confiscated the cash the Appellant must have been allowed to redeem the same on payment of fine which in the present case his cash seized could have been released by giving an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. He submits that in view of above, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 3. On the other hand Shri Sanjay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale-proceeds of the excisable goods on which appropriate Central Excise duty have not been paid? 4.2.2 I find that Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable in the Central Excise cases by virtue of Notification No 68/63-CE dated 04.05 1963 issued under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 121 of the Customs Act 1962 provides that where any smuggled goods are sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods, the sale-proceeds thereof shall be able to confiscation in the subject case, Shri Mahesh Chaoudhary, partner of M/s. SRTCI in his statement dated 09.04.2014 at answer No. 11 has admitted that I once again confirm that the excisable goods viz. bends, Elbows and other pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Act, 1944 I observe that the proposal for confiscation of Indian currency has categorically been discussed by the adjudicating authority in the present impugned order and held that the same is sale proceeds of the excisable goods which has been sold by the Respondent without licit documents and without payment of duty. The Respondent has also not contested the observation of the adjudicating authority by filing reply to appeal made by the appellant department. Further, the verification of incriminating documents and investigations conclusively established that the Respondent had grossly evaded payment of Central Excise duty by way of illicit clearance of excisable goods. Even the partner of the Respondent has in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjection wherein it was submitted that the seized cash was not liable to confiscation. The Appellant also raised the issue on the provision of section 11 AC (1) (d) that after payment of duty, interest and 15% penalty entire proceeding of the show cause notice should have been concluded and no confiscation could have been ordered. In this regard we found that since Adjudicating Authority had given clear finding that the cash seized by the investigating officer is liable to confiscation in such case without passing any order on the confiscation of the cash the adjustment of the same towards the duty, interest and penalty is also incorrect. The Appellant also vehemently argued that the Appellant s partner in his statement has not admitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
