9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne bill was given to him by Shri Rangasamy at Erode and that Shri Rengasamy instructed him to deliver the goods to M/s. Sowmya Steel, Tiruppur. The lorry as well as the bars and rods were seized by the officers. The lorry driver reiterated the above facts in his subsequent statement also. Shri K.K. Srinivasan, Director of SKSR Mills, in his statement, admitted that he had cleared 11,270 Kgs. of CTD bars without raising any invoice or bill. From the results of the investigations, it appeared to the department that M/s. SKSR Mills had manufactured and cleared the above quantity of rods and bars without payment of duty and without cover of invoice, to M/s. Tamilnadu Steel Corporation and that Smt. N. Akilandeswari [owner of the lorry]; Shri K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records and hearing ld. Consultant for the appellants and ld. DR for the respondent, I find that, as the duty of Rs. 19,835/- on the rods and bars was paid by M/s. SKSR Mills long before issuance of the show-cause notice, it was not open to the authorities to impose on them any penalty under Rule 173Q as held by this Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285, affirmed by the Supreme Court vide 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (SC). However, the confiscation of the goods in this case is unassailable inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that M/s. SKSR Mills had removed the goods out of their factory without payment of duty and without raising any invoice. Goods so removed in contravention of Central Excise Rules w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had direct or indirect role in the illegal transportation of the non-duty paid goods." The above finding has not been disturbed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of evidence to show that the owner of the vehicle had direct or indirect role in the illegal transportation of the non-duty paid goods, it cannot be said that she had knowledge of the fact that the lorry was being used for transportation of offending goods. In other words, the essential condition for confiscation of vehicle under Section 115 of the Customs Act read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act has not been satisfied in this case. Therefore, the confiscation of the lorry cannot be upheld and the same is set aside. Consequently, the redemption fine also get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
