Prior clearance plea failed on seizure chronology, while excess valuation beyond the show cause notice justified only reduced fine and penalty.

The Tribunal rejected the plea that goods covered by the invoices had already been cleared before interception, because the claimed removal time was after the truck was stopped; confiscation was therefore upheld on that factual issue. It also held that where the adjudication adopted a value higher than the value stated in the show cause notice, the order travelled beyond the notice only to that extent, so interference was confined to the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. The appeal succeeded only in part, with reduction of the fine and penalty while the confiscation order was otherwise maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods covered by the invoices of M/s. S.N. Enterprises were cleared from the appellant's factory before interception; (ii) Whether the adjudication order could sustain confiscation, fine and penalty when the value adopted for confiscation exceeded the value mentioned in the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the goods covered by the invoices of M/s. S.N. Enterprises were cleared from the appellant's factory before interception.

Analysis: The goods were stated to have been removed at 5.20 p.m. on 8-7-1996, whereas the truck carrying the goods was intercepted at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. On this chronology, the plea that the goods had already been cleared to a trading concern before seizure was not accepted.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the confiscation was upheld on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order could sustain confiscation, fine and penalty when the value adopted for confiscation exceeded the value mentioned in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The show cause notice mentioned a lower value for the goods than the value ultimately taken for confiscation. To that extent, the adjudication travelled beyond the notice and warranted interference only on the quantum of redemption fine and penalty.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced, while the order was otherwise maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in redemption fine and penalty, and the rest of the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual plea of prior clearance is inconsistent with the seizure time, it fails; however, a confiscation order cannot stand in full on a value higher than that alleged in the show cause notice, and the relief is confined to reduction in monetary penalty.

---