Confiscation and penalty relief follows where duty liability is unproven, documents go unexamined, and penalties are excessive.

Finished goods found in factory premises were treated as not yet attracting duty at seizure stage, so confiscation was not fully disturbed, but the redemption fine was aligned with the duty involved and the penalty was cut as excessive. For 858 MCBs, the department failed to prove manufacture by the assessee or clearances without duty, and the third-party branded goods could not be sustained on the record; confiscation, redemption fine, duty and interest were set aside. Goods found at M/s Aarkaylite Electricals required fresh adjudication because the invoices and supporting documents were not examined. The penalty on a part-time records employee was reduced in view of his limited role.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation, redemption fine, duty demand and penalty in respect of finished goods found in the factory of M/s Prakash Switchgear were sustainable; (ii) Whether the confiscation, duty demand and penalty in respect of 858 pieces of MCBs and the goods found at the premises of M/s Aarkaylite Electricals were sustainable; (iii) Whether the penalty imposed on Shri R.K. Gupta was liable to be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation, redemption fine, duty demand and penalty in respect of finished goods found in the factory of M/s Prakash Switchgear were sustainable.

Analysis: The finished goods were found in the factory premises and the RG-1 register was subsequently produced showing the entries of those goods. The duty on goods lying in the factory had not yet become payable at the stage of seizure. In these circumstances, confiscation was not interfered with in full, but the redemption fine was required to be aligned with the duty involved. The penalty was also found excessive in view of the facts.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was reduced to the amount of duty involved and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation, duty demand and penalty in respect of 858 pieces of MCBs and the goods found at the premises of M/s Aarkaylite Electricals were sustainable.

Analysis: The department failed to establish that the 858 pieces of MCBs were manufactured by the assessee or cleared without payment of duty. The goods bore a third-party brand and their seizure and confiscation could not be justified on the record. As regards the seized goods at the premises of M/s Aarkaylite Electricals, the invoices and supporting documents produced were not examined by the lower authorities, making a fresh adjudication necessary.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, duty and interest relating to the 858 MCBs were set aside, and the matter concerning M/s Aarkaylite Electricals was remanded for fresh adjudication after examination of documents and hearing.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed on Shri R.K. Gupta was liable to be sustained.

Analysis: Shri R.K. Gupta was only a part-time employee engaged on a nominal remuneration for maintaining excise records. In view of his limited role and the surrounding facts, the penalty was considered excessive.

Conclusion: The penalty on Shri R.K. Gupta was reduced to Rs. 1,000.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified by reducing certain monetary burdens, setting aside part of the confiscation and duty demand, and remanding one segment of the dispute for fresh adjudication.

---