Tribunal overturns cash confiscation & penalty for non-duty payment on iron/steel goods due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal confirming the confiscation of cash and penalty for alleged non-payment of duty on excisable goods. It ruled in favor of the appellants, non-registered dealers in iron and steel products, due to the lack of evidence linking the seized cash to non-duty paid goods. Emphasizing the burden of proof on the authorities, the Tribunal held that goods purchased from the market were presumed duty paid unless proven otherwise. The appellants were granted consequential relief as the impugned order was deemed unsustainable without sufficient evidence.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to impugned order-in-appeal confirming confiscation of cash and penalty for alleged non-payment of duty on excisable goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order-in-appeal confirming the confiscation of cash and imposition of penalty for allegedly receiving excisable goods without paying duty. The appellants, non-registered dealers in iron and steel products, argued that there was no evidence to prove clandestine receipt of goods or that the seized cash was proceeds from non-duty paid goods.

2. The appellants contended that no evidence existed to substantiate the claim that the cash seized was from the sale of excisable goods on which no duty was paid. They highlighted the lack of recorded statements from manufacturing units proving non-payment of duty. The appellants disclosed names of manufacturers they purchased from, but no statements were recorded from these manufacturers during the investigation.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellants' office was inspected, and cash seized based on the assumption that it was proceeds from non-duty paid goods. However, without evidence or statements from manufacturers, no legal presumption could be made about the duty status of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the authorities to establish non-payment of duty.

4. Referring to the case of Sulekh Ram and Sons v. Union of India and Others, the Tribunal held that the presumption should be that goods purchased from the market were duty paid unless proven otherwise. The lack of evidence linking the seized cash to non-duty paid goods led to the conclusion that the impugned order was not sustainable.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants due to the absence of evidence supporting the confiscation of cash and the presumption of duty paid on goods purchased. The appellants were granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---