Appeal Partially Allowed: Duty Demand Upheld, Confiscation Revoked for First-Time Offender

The judge upheld the duty demand and penalties in a case involving clandestine removal of goods supported by evidence. However, the confiscation of assets was revoked as the appellant was not a repeated offender, deeming it unwarranted. The appeal was partly allowed, with duty demand and penalties upheld, but confiscation of assets set aside.

---

---

Issues: Duty demand, Penalty imposition, Confiscation of seized goods, Reduction of duty demand by lower Appellate Authority

The judgment pertains to a case where Central Excise Officers found discrepancies in the records of a company regarding the clearance of M.S. Scrap. The officers discovered clandestine removal of scrap through two methods: underpaying central excise duty on invoices and clearing goods without duty payment. A duty demand was raised, and penalties were proposed. The Addl. Collector confirmed the duty demand, imposed penalties, and confiscated seized goods, allowing redemption upon payment of fines. The lower Appellate Authority reduced the duty demand but retained the penalties and fines, leading to the current appeal.

Upon review, the judge found that the department's case of clandestine removal was supported by evidence such as weighment bridge records and the statement of a Scrap Dealer. The factory Manager of the appellants also admitted to engaging in clandestine removal practices. The judge noted that no grounds were presented to set aside the duty demand. The request for remand based on a certificate obtained after the impugned order was deemed unacceptable as the certificate was not filed along with an application for additional evidence before the Tribunal.

The judge upheld the duty demand and penalties, citing the established evidence of clandestine removal. However, the confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery was set aside since the appellant was not a repeated offender. The judge determined that such confiscation was unwarranted in this case. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, with the duty demand and penalties upheld, but the confiscation of assets being revoked.

---

---