Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce, Kanpur vs Banwari Lal Truck Owner & Khandelwal ... on 22 February, 2001
ORDER Shri K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. Brief facts of this case are that during the course of transit checks at Agra on 31.5.95, the Central Excise officers of Agra Division intercepted 6 truck bearing Registration No. UP 80G-9891 loaded with 91129 pieces hardware items of Brass and Aluminium falling under heading No. 8302.00 and 8310.00 valued at Rs.14,34,600/-. These goods were not accompanied by any invoice, bill challans etc. or supported by any documentary evidence of payment of central excise duty there on. Therefore, these goods were seized. Similarly the truck was also seized and the proceedings were drawn in respect of these goods and the vehicle. These proceedings culminated in the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur passing an order dated 21.11.97 in which he ordered for the confiscation of the seized goods but gave an option to M/s Khandelwal Industries Enterprises, Agra-owners of the goods to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. He further ordered for this confiscation of the seized goods from the factory of the above mentioned party and gave an option to the party to redeem the same on the payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/-. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on M/s Khandelwal Industries Enterprises and a penalty of Rs. 1000/- on Shri S.M.Khandelwal, Partner of M/s Khandelwal Industries Enterprises. The Deputy Commissioner also ordered for the confiscation of the truck and gave an option to the owner of the truck to redeem the same on fine of Rs. 5000/- He also imposed a penalty of Rs.1000/- on Shri Banwari Lal, the truck driver.
2. The above named parties filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad vide his order dated 21.2.2000, but for upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant parties, set aside the order of confiscation of seized goods and the truck. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed that the seized goods and the truck had already been provisionally released against a bond and same were not physically available for confiscation. Under these circumstances, the adjudicating authority could not order for confiscation on goods and given an option to the appellants to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation to redeem the goods. It is observed that the proper course would have been to appropriate the bond amount. The confiscation of the goods can be ordered only where the goods are available. He has accordingly held that the order of confiscation and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation is not valid and justified.
3. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of Commissioner(Appeals). The respondents have also filed cross objection in respect of the penalties upheld on them, I have heard Shri A.K.Jain JDR for the appellants. The respondents are not represented. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported 2000(115) ELT 278(SC) have held that redumption fine is imposable even after release of goods on execution of bond and mere fact that the goods were released on the bond would not take away the power of the Custom Authorities to levy redumption fine if subsequent to release of the goods import was found not valid or that there was any other irregularity which would entitle the Customs Authorities to confiscate the said goods. It is contended that the ratio of this judgement of Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the present case. I have considered these submissions and find force in them. As rightly contended, the Apex Court in the cited judgement have held that release of the seized goods on execution of bond is no bar to the confiscation of the offending goods and imposition of redemption fine.
4. In view of the above legal position, the order passed by the lower authority is set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal before him on merits. Therefore, the matter is remanded to him to re-consider the appeals on merits and give his findings accordingly. The cross objections are also disposed off in the same terms. Both the sides should be afforded reasonable opportunity by Commissioner(Appeals) before taking the final view in the matter.