Confiscation overturned for non-payment of excise duty by M/s. ITC Ltd.

The case involved the confiscation of capital goods for non-payment of excise duty by M/s. ITC Ltd. The appellant argued that since duty was promptly paid after notification without intent to evade, confiscation should not apply under Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act. The Member (Judicial) concluded that as there was no suppression of facts or fraudulent intent, the show cause notice and confiscation were unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of capital goods for non-payment of excise duty.
2. Validity of show cause notice and confiscation in the absence of suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of duty.

Issue 1: Confiscation of capital goods for non-payment of excise duty:
The case involved M/s. ITC Ltd. providing machineries to another company for biscuit manufacturing. The capital goods were later dispatched to different entities without excise duty payment, leading to their seizure. Subsequently, the original company paid the duty and interest, but a show cause notice was issued to both companies. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The appellant argued that since duty was paid promptly after departmental pointing out, Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act should apply, exempting them from confiscation. The appellant contended that there was no intent to evade duty, as evidenced by legitimate invoicing and timely payment upon notification.

Issue 2: Validity of show cause notice and confiscation in the absence of suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of duty:
The appellant maintained that the goods were cleared under valid invoices, and upon departmental notification, the duty was promptly paid. The appellant argued that since there was no malafide intention or suppression of facts, the show cause notice and subsequent confiscation were unwarranted. The Revenue, however, relied on a tribunal decision to assert that even if duty was paid belatedly, goods cleared without initial payment were liable for confiscation. The Member (Judicial) analyzed the situation, emphasizing that under Section 11A(2B), if duty is paid promptly upon notification without intent to evade, confiscation should not occur. The Member concluded that since there was no suppression of facts or malafide intent, the show cause notice was unjustified, and the confiscation of goods was deemed incorrect. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis showcases the legal intricacies involved in the judgment, highlighting the application of Section 11A(2B) to determine the validity of confiscation in cases of delayed excise duty payment without fraudulent intent.

---