Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1647 - AT - Central ExciseConfiscation and seizure of goods - Redemption fine - Held that - Appellant failed to produce invoices for procurement of the goods and thereafter could not produce the invoices. As the goods are branded therefore both the lower authorities have correctly drawn conclusion that the goods are procured by the appellant without payment of duty by the supplier. In these circumstances, I hold that the lower authorities were correct in demanding the duty on the clandestinely procured goods by Devinod Trade Pvt. Ltd. and hold that goods are liable for confiscation, Considering the quantum of goods and value of the goods, I hold that redemption fine imposed on the appellant is absolutely correct. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and duty liability. 2. Failure to produce invoices for procured goods. 3. Redemption fine imposition on the supplier and appellant. 4. Non-appearance of the appellant during the proceedings. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged an order where the adjudicating authority held that seized goods were liable for confiscation and duty payment by the supplier. The appellant failed to produce invoices for the goods seized during a search at their premises. The lower authorities concluded that the goods were procured clandestinely without duty payment. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal. 2. Despite multiple notices, the appellant did not appear during the proceedings, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The appellant's counsel also failed to attend the Tribunal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal on its merits due to the appellant's non-appearance. 3. The respondent, represented by the AR, supported the impugned order, emphasizing that the appellant admitted to procuring goods without invoices, leading to duty liability. The supplier also acknowledged their duty liability. The branded nature of the goods further supported the conclusion that they were procured without duty payment, justifying the confiscation and imposition of a redemption fine. 4. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, noting the appellant's failure to produce invoices for the procured goods. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal found the duty demand on the clandestinely procured goods by the supplier to be valid. The imposition of the redemption fine on the appellant was deemed appropriate based on the quantity and value of the goods. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the confiscation and fine imposed on the appellant.
|