2000 (11) TMI 900 - AT - Central Excise

CEGAT Upholds Decision on Confiscation & Penalty for Lack of Documentation

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on plywood and a truck ... Confiscation of goods - redemption fine - penalty for non-maintenance/non-entry in RG-1 - goods within factory premises - benefit of doubtConfiscation of goods - goods within factory premises - penalty for non-maintenance/non-entry in RG-1 - benefit of doubt - Validity of the order of confiscation, imposition of redemption fines and penalty where plywood was found on premises but claimed to be produced on earlier dates and not entered in RG-1 due to absence of the responsible person. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the plywood found on 6-3-1997 was the produce of 4th and 5th March, 1987 and accepted the respondents' explanation that entries in the RG-1 register were not made because the concerned person was on leave. On that basis the appellate authority held that goods still within the factory premises could not be confiscated and set aside the Additional Commissioner's order of confiscation, redemption fines and penalty. The Tribunal, after hearing the Revenue and perusing its memo of appeal, found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s conclusion and held that the appellate authority had permissibly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. [Paras 2, 3]The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order setting aside confiscation and penalty is sustained and the Revenue's appeal is rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order setting aside confiscation, redemption fines and penalty is dismissed; the appellate authority's extension of benefit of doubt to the respondents is upheld. The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata rejected the Revenue's appeal in a case where plywood and a truck were confiscated due to lack of proper documentation. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and penalty, giving the benefit of doubt to the respondents as the goods were within the factory premises and not entered in the register due to a staff member's absence. The appeal was rejected as no infirmity was found in the Commissioner's decision.