2002 (1) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Pesticides and Goods, Imposes Penalty

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of intercepted pesticides valued at Rs. 5,14,825/- from a tempo, allowing redemption on payment of a fine. ... Penalty - Accountal of goods - Modvat on inputs Issues: Confiscation of intercepted pesticides, Confiscation of excess goods, Disallowance of Modvat credit, Imposition of penaltyConfiscation of intercepted pesticides:The case involved the interception of a tempo loaded with pesticides by Central Excise Officers. The officers found discrepancies in the documents related to the goods loaded in the tempo, leading to the seizure of the goods. Upon physical verification, an excise of goods valued at Rs. 17,77,205/- was found in excess of the recorded balance. The appellant's director admitted that the excess goods were not accounted for in the Central Excise records. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 5,14,825/- from the tempo. The Dy. Commissioner allowed the redemption of the confiscated goods on payment of a fine.Confiscation of excess goods:Regarding the excess goods found during verification, valued at Rs. 17,77,205/-, the Dy. Commissioner confiscated them but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. Additionally, Modvat credit of Rs. 3,73,571/- was disallowed, and a personal penalty of Rs. 1,83,363/- was imposed under Rule 173Q. The appellant's argument that the goods were not recorded due to the Central Excise audit team's presence was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and the redemption fine as nominal considering the value of the goods.Disallowance of Modvat credit:The issue of disallowance of Modvat credit on drums, caps, and leads was raised. The appellant failed to provide evidence showing inclusion of the drum value in the final product's assessable value. The Dy. Commissioner noted the appellant's admission of wrong availment of Modvat credit, leading to the voluntary debiting of the amount in RG 23A Part II. As no further evidence was presented, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this part of the order.Imposition of penalty:A penalty of Rs. 1,83,363/- was initially imposed, which the Tribunal deemed excessive. Considering the facts of the case, evidence on record, and submissions made, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order with the modification of the penalty reduction, disposing of the appeal accordingly.