1999 (12) TMI 402 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds decision in Central Excise duty case, no penalty or confiscation.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case involving a Central Excise duty payment discrepancy. The firm rectified the duty ... Accountal of goods - Confiscation and penalty Issues:Central Excise duty payment discrepancy, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penaltyCentral Excise Duty Payment Discrepancy:The case involved a discrepancy in the payment of Central Excise duty by a firm for goods cleared under specific invoices. The Central Excise Officers found that the duty shown as paid in the invoice was not debited in the RG-23A, Part II register of the firm. The firm later rectified the omission by debiting the duty amount in the register. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed for failure to maintain statutory documents. The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid before the show cause notice, indicating no intent to evade payment. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds for confiscation or penalty, upholding the Commissioner's decision.Confiscation of Goods:The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing that the confiscation of the seized goods and vehicle was not discussed. However, the Tribunal observed that the issue of confiscation was not raised before the lower appellate authority. The Revenue failed to provide the memorandum of appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), making it difficult to assess the grounds raised in the present appeal. As the duty was paid promptly upon detection, the Tribunal deemed confiscation unreasonable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.Imposition of Penalty:Regarding the imposition of a penalty, the Tribunal found no evidence of willful intent to evade duty payment or contravene Central Excise Rules. The firm rectified the duty payment discrepancy promptly upon discovery. As such, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to vacate the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that there was no merit in interfering with the impugned order based on the facts and circumstances of the case.