Fair adjudication and redemption fine requirements governed confiscation proceedings; non-consideration of submissions and documents vitiated the order.

Failure to supply the stock-taking report or working sheet, despite repeated requests, and failure to deal with the appellant's submissions deprived the assessee of a fair opportunity and made the adjudication improper, requiring fresh consideration. In confiscation proceedings, absolute confiscation was treated as unsustainable where the statutory requirement of offering an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine applied. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the recorded observations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication was vitiated for failure to supply the stock-taking report or working sheet and for not dealing with the appellant's submissions; (ii) Whether confiscated goods could be ordered to be absolutely confiscated without giving an option of redemption fine.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication was vitiated for failure to supply the stock-taking report or working sheet and for not dealing with the appellant's submissions.

Analysis: The request for the stock-taking report had been made before filing the reply and was reiterated during personal hearing. The adjudication proceeded without any response to that request and without addressing the various contentions raised in reply. Such omission deprived the appellant of a proper opportunity to meet the case and showed non-consideration of material submissions.

Conclusion: The adjudication was not proper and required fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscated goods could be ordered to be absolutely confiscated without giving an option of redemption fine.

Analysis: Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as requiring the adjudicating authority to provide the owner an option to redeem confiscated goods on payment of fine, as the facts and circumstances warranted. The order did not grant such an option, which rendered the confiscation order unsustainable on that aspect.

Conclusion: The absolute confiscation order could not be sustained without consideration of redemption fine.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the recorded observations.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication in confiscation proceedings must fairly consider the assessee's material requests and submissions, and confiscated goods cannot be absolutely confiscated without applying the statutory requirement of an option for redemption where applicable.

---