2011 (4) TMI 1169 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants partial relief in goods confiscation case, emphasizes need for evidence

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of unaccounted goods but overturned the duty demand, interest, and penalties order due to insufficient evidence ... Confiscation – penalty – remission of fine - held that:- there is no dispute that these goods had not been accounted. Once it has been admitted that the goods which were required to be accounted were not accounted, they are liable to confiscation. Undervaluation of goods - held that:- In the absence of any documentary evidence, the contradictory statements given by the three partners cannot be relied upon for the purpose of under-valuation and rejection for purpose of manufacture of Sequester-50. Since the statements are clearly wrong as far as Sequester-50 is concerned, it would not be proper to confirm the allegation of under-valuation on the basis of these statements. Therefore, the confirmation of demand on the ground of under-valuation cannot be sustained. Confiscation upheld - set aside the impugned order as far as demand for duty, interest thereon and penalty related to that portion imposed on all the appellants. The matter is to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the quantum of redemption fine and the quantum of penalty on the appellants only as far as the confiscated goods and the gravity of offence in relation to confiscated goods. Issues:1. Unaccounted goods seized during search.2. Allegations of under-valuation and clandestine clearance.3. Confiscation of goods, duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition.Analysis:Issue 1: Unaccounted goods seized during searchThe judgment details a search conducted on the factory premises of M/s. Universal Enterprises, revealing unaccounted finished products valued at Rs. 66,900. The seized goods were not reflected in the RG-1 stock register, leading to a belief that misrepresentation had occurred. The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice proposing duty demand, interest, and confiscation of goods. The appellants contested, arguing that the goods were accounted for differently, and statements obtained under coercion should not be considered as evidence. The Tribunal noted the lack of documentary or corroborative evidence supporting the clandestine clearance allegations but upheld the confiscation of unaccounted goods.Issue 2: Allegations of under-valuation and clandestine clearancePartners and the Manager admitted to intentional undervaluation and mislabeling of products. The Department contended that unaccounted goods indicated clandestine clearance. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the statements recorded and the lack of evidence supporting under-valuation claims. Samples drawn during the search did not reveal mislabeling, and the partners' contradictory statements were deemed unreliable. The Tribunal concluded that the allegations of under-valuation and clandestine clearance were not substantiated due to the absence of documentary evidence.Issue 3: Confiscation of goods, duty demand, interest, and penalty impositionThe Commissioner had confiscated part of the seized goods, imposed duty demand, interest, and penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal set aside the order related to duty demand, interest, and penalties, remanding the matter to determine the quantum of redemption fine and penalties solely concerning the confiscated goods. The judgment highlighted the necessity of corroborative evidence to support allegations of under-valuation and emphasized the importance of documentary proof in such cases.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of unaccounted goods but overturned the order on duty demand, interest, and penalties due to insufficient evidence supporting the allegations of under-valuation and clandestine clearance. The case was remanded for further assessment of the penalties related to the confiscated goods.