2004 (4) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Transporter not liable for goods discrepancy, tribunal overturns penalty and confiscation order.

The appellant's truck was confiscated for carrying goods different from the declared content. Despite the lack of evidence implicating the transporter in ... Confiscation of conveyance Issues:Confiscation of truck and goods, imposition of personal penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944.Confiscation of Truck and Goods:The lower authorities had confiscated the truck belonging to the appellant, offering an option to redeem it on payment of a redemption fine and a security amount. The truck was intercepted loaded with old brass scraps, but physical verification revealed various types of Brass Parts. The consigner was mentioned as specific entities. The appellant, as a transporter, pleaded inability to verify package contents due to accepting declarations made by consigners. Despite nobody claiming ownership of the seized goods during adjudication, they were confiscated. The adjudicating authority rejected the transporter's plea, stating they failed to ensure package contents matched bill descriptions, intentionally carrying goods despite prior detainment of their truck. However, the reasoning was deemed weak as it lacked evidence and relied on assumptions.Imposition of Personal Penalty under Rule 209A:A personal penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the owner of the truck under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The adjudicating authority held the transporter accountable for not verifying package contents and intentionally carrying goods, citing prior detainment of their truck for similar reasons. However, the Tribunal's precedent in Inland Road Service v. CCE established that a transporter's liability does not arise solely from a fictitious consigner, absolving them of knowledge regarding non-duty paid goods. As there was no evidence implicating the appellant in the clandestine removal of goods, the confiscation of the truck and imposition of penalties were unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues of confiscation of the truck and goods, as well as the imposition of a personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The judgment's examination reveals the transporter's defense, the adjudicating authority's rationale, and the Tribunal's precedent, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and grant relief to the appellant.