2000 (1) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Court affirms penalties for clandestine removal of excisable goods by hair oil manufacturer

The appellate court upheld the confiscation of excisable goods, imposition of redemption fines, and penalties on appellants engaged in hair oil ... Demand - Clandestine removal of goods Issues:1. Confiscation of excisable goods and penalty imposition.2. Allegation of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment.3. Failure to confirm duty amount by Assistant Commissioner.4. Burden of proof in case of clandestine removal.5. Appeal against the orders of confiscation and penalty imposition.Analysis:1. The authorities below confiscated the seized excisable goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellants along with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Additionally, the delivery van was also confiscated with a redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. The appellants, engaged in hair oil manufacturing, faced allegations of clandestine removal of goods without duty payment. Central Excise officers intercepted a delivery van unloading goods at an unauthorized location, leading to the recovery of hair oil worth Rs. 3,27,978/-. Statements confirmed lack of duty payment documents for the seized goods.3. The Assistant Commissioner, after adjudication, found the goods were cleared clandestinely and ordered confiscation, along with imposing a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, leading to the present appeal.4. The appellants argued that the duty amount was not confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, indicating doubt about non-duty payment. They contended that reliance on statements of individuals not well-acquainted with the case was unjust. The onus to prove clandestine removal was placed on the Revenue, which they failed to discharge.5. The Revenue argued that despite the duty amount not being confirmed, the finding of clandestine removal was conclusive. The lack of duty payment evidence, voluntary statements, and absence of legal removal documentation supported the confiscation orders. The appellate authority reduced the redemption fines but confirmed the penalty, rejecting the appeal except for the modifications made.This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues of confiscation, duty payment, burden of proof, and penalty imposition, providing a detailed understanding of the case and the arguments presented by both parties.