2001 (8) TMI 742 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds seizure of fabrics for duty evasion, dismisses appeal on redemption fines.

The Tribunal confirmed the Order-in-Original for the seizure of processed man-made fabrics valued over Rs. 1.3 Lakhs due to clandestine manufacturing and ... Confiscation of goods and penalty - Precedent Issues:1. Confirmation of Order-in-Original regarding seizure of processed man-made fabrics.2. Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty imposition.3. Appellant's submission regarding confiscation and penalty proportionality.4. Legal interpretation of Supreme Court judgments on confiscation and redemption fine.Analysis:1. The case involved the confirmation of an Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise regarding the seizure of processed man-made fabrics valued over Rs. 1.3 Lakhs from the appellant. The goods were seized during transportation in a Van, revealing clandestine manufacturing and clearance without payment of Central Excise Duty. The subsequent proceedings led to the confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and options for redemption of goods and the Van upon payment of fines.2. The appellants, although absent during the hearing, submitted in writing challenging the confiscation of goods based on a Stay Order by the Tribunal in a previous case. They argued that the confiscation was impermissible as the goods had been provisionally released against a bond. The written submissions also raised concerns about the proportionality of the penalty imposed compared to the gravity of the offense. The Department emphasized the deliberate evasion of Central Excise Duty and defended the quantum of punishment imposed, stating that the fines and penalties were justified.3. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that deliberate evasion of duty was established through intercepted goods, shortages in the factory, and admissions by the appellant's employees. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that confiscation of released goods was unlawful based on a Supreme Court judgment, clarifying that the Supreme Court's decision in a previous case did not prohibit confiscation of goods released under a bond. Referring to the judgment in Western Components Ltd. case, the Tribunal upheld the actions of the lower authorities regarding confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties, deeming them in conformity with the law.4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Western Components Ltd. case regarding the imposition of redemption fine even after goods were released on bond. The Tribunal concluded that the fines and penalties imposed were justified considering the circumstances and the value of the goods involved. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the orders passed by the lower authorities, rejecting the appeal.