Transporter penalty for missing Central Excise gate passes set aside where no intentional involvement was shown.

Penalty on a transporter for carrying electric wires and cables without Central Excise gate passes was found unjustified because the record did not show any intentional involvement in alleged illicit dealings. The Government noted that the consignors and consignees were not shown to be fictitious on the evidence relied on, and that a transporter, rather than a manufacturer, could not reasonably be expected to insist on gate passes from the consignor in the circumstances reflected by the bills and records. The penalty was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the transporting company for carrying electric wires and cables without Central Excise gate passes was justified under Rule 52(A)(5) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The goods were seized for want of gate passes and penalty was imposed on the footing that fictitious consignor and consignees were involved. In revision, the Government found that the record did not show any intentional involvement by the petitioners in the alleged illicit dealing. It was also held that the petitioners, being a transporter and not a manufacturer, could not reasonably have been expected to insist on Central Excise gate passes from the consignor in the circumstances shown by the bills and records.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be unjustified and was set aside in favour of the petitioners.

---