Clandestine removal of excisable goods through fake documents justifies confiscation and transporter penalty under Rule 209A.

A transporter who merely arranged carriage of seized excisable goods under fake documents could not claim release of the copper ingots where the owner and consignee did not come forward and no duty payment was shown. The goods were treated as clandestinely removed excisable goods, so confiscation and refusal of release were sustained. The transporter's facilitation of removal in connivance with the hidden manufacturer, through false documents and commission-based transport, brought him within the scope of Rule 209A, and the penalty was upheld as not excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seized copper ingots could be claimed and released to the transporter despite the absence of proof of duty payment and absence of claim by the owner or consignee; (ii) whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable against the transporter.

Issue (i): whether the seized copper ingots could be claimed and released to the transporter despite the absence of proof of duty payment and absence of claim by the owner or consignee.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted with fake and incorrect documents, the recorded consignor denied any connection with the goods, the consignee did not come forward, and the transporter was shown to be only arranging transport for commission. On these facts, the transporter was neither owner nor purchaser nor a trustee or bailee entitled to custody. The reliance placed on customs cases and on situations involving a buyer or job worker was held inapposite because the goods here were excisable goods clandestinely removed without payment of duty.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods and refusal to release them to the transporter were upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable against the transporter.

Analysis: The transporter was found to have facilitated removal of the goods in connivance with the hidden manufacturer, using false documents and arranging transport for commission. That conduct brought him within the mischief of the penal provision, and the amount of penalty was not considered excessive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation and the penalty were sustained in full, and the appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A transporter who merely facilitates clandestine removal of excisable goods under fake documents, without proving ownership or lawful entitlement to the goods, cannot claim release of the goods and is liable to penalty for such facilitation.

---