2007 (1) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Four appeals against the order of the Commissioner upholding confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on the appellants.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods and Penalties
The case involved 100% EOUs procuring goods under CT-3 certificate for export obligation, but investigation revealed irregularities in the procurement process. The goods were found disposed of in the market or substituted with substandard materials. The goods in question were polyester scarves meant for export but procured from the open market. Confiscation under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and penalties were imposed on the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Additional Commissioner's order, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Appellant's Argument
The learned SDR argued that the appellants violated provisions of Central Excise/Customs Rules by not accounting for duty-paid goods in statutory records, thereby evading duty payment. They contended that 100% EOUs, though not manufacturers, are deemed registered warehouse holders and must comply with regulations. The appellants failed to follow procedures for bringing duty-paid goods into the factory premises, breaching rules with intent to evade duty payment.

Issue 3: Respondent's Argument
The advocate for the respondent argued that the goods procured from the open market were not required to be accounted for in statutory books, hence not liable for confiscation under Rule 25. They highlighted the lack of specific rule contravention mentioned in the show cause notice, citing legal precedents where clarity on contravention was deemed essential for confiscation.

Judgment
The Tribunal examined Rule 25, emphasizing its application to goods manufactured, produced, or stored by a registered person of a warehouse. The show cause notice lacked specificity on the contravention clause under Rule 25, rendering it vague and inadequate for confiscation. As the goods from the open market were not duty-exempt and not required to be accounted for, confiscation and penalties under Rule 25 were deemed unjustified. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, ruling in favor of the appellants on the grounds of procedural deficiencies and lack of legal basis for confiscation and penalties.