Tribunal sets aside goods confiscation, upholds penalty for duty evasion, reduces penalty amount, absolves Managing Director.

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods brought back for substitution by an Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) in violation of EOU provisions, confirming a duty amount of Rs. 9,23,492. While penalty imposition was upheld for duty evasion, the penalty amount was reduced due to the evasion exceeding Rs. 34 lakhs. The Managing Director, who was not personally involved and was ill during the relevant period, was absolved of personal liability, with the penalty imposed on him being set aside.

---

---

Issues involved:
Violation of provisions relating to Export-Oriented Units (EOUs), duty demand computation, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, personal liability of Managing Director.

Violation of provisions relating to EOUs:
The case involved an Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) that failed to bring back goods sent for processing to the Domestic Tariff Area, leading to duty evasion. The appellant argued that while duty payment was justified for goods cleared for processing, confiscation of goods brought back for substitution was unwarranted. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the confiscation of the substituted goods.

Duty demand computation:
The appellant contested the duty demand computation, claiming the correct amount was Rs. 7,37,665. However, the Revenue asserted the duty amount was Rs. 9,23,492, which the appellant did not contest. The Tribunal confirmed the duty amount at Rs. 9,23,492.

Confiscation of goods:
The Tribunal found that the appellant deliberately violated EOU provisions by not bringing back goods for export, leading to evasion of Central Excise Duty. While penalty imposition was warranted, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs due to the duty evasion amount being over Rs. 34 lakhs.

Imposition of penalties:
The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence implicating the Managing Director personally in the duty evasion. As the Managing Director was in prolonged illness during the relevant period and had no personal involvement in the offense, the penalty imposed on him was set aside.

Personal liability of Managing Director:
The Tribunal, considering the lack of personal involvement of the Managing Director in the duty evasion and his illness during the relevant period, set aside the penalty imposed on the Managing Director. The appeal of the Managing Director was allowed, absolving him of personal liability in the matter.

---