Tribunal upholds redemption fine on traders for exceeding balance, citing Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal upheld the imposition and quantum of the redemption fine on traders of HDPE granules whose goods were confiscated for exceeding recorded balance. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside penalties on the proprietor but upheld the redemption fine. The Tribunal found the redemption fine justified as per the Central Excise Act, considering the goods' value exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, and rejected the appeal, citing precedents where fines were reduced based on specific circumstances not present in this case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods.
2. Reasonableness of the quantum of redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, traders of HDPE granules, had goods confiscated by the Department for being in excess over recorded balance. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the proprietor but upheld the rest. The appeal challenges the redemption fine's gravity imposed by the authorities below.

2. The appellant argued against the redemption fine, claiming it should be reduced or set aside due to lack of mala fides. The Department contended that redemption fine imposition does not require proof of malafides and is based on the value of the confiscated goods. The Central Excise Act allows the proper officer to impose a fine as deemed fit. The Tribunal cannot interfere unless the officer's discretion was unreasonable.

3. The main issue was whether the redemption fine was justified and if the quantum was reasonable. The goods' value was over Rs. 10 lakhs, and the appellant accepted the offence without challenging the confiscation or penalty. Section 34 of the Central Excise Act does not mandate mens rea for redemption fine imposition, granting the officer discretion. Considering the goods' value, the Tribunal found the redemption fine reasonable and cited relevant case law where fines were reduced based on specific circumstances, which did not apply in the present case.

4. The Tribunal, based on the above analysis, rejected the appeal challenging the redemption fine's imposition and quantum, upholding the decision of the lower authorities.

---