TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The appellants before me are neither a transporter, registered dealer or owner of a warehouse. Therefore, the goods cannot be confiscated in the hands of the appellants as per the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. If the goods cannot be confiscated under Rule 25, penalties imposed under Rule 26 are also not sustainable. So is the confiscation of the vehicles which were seized for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansit check. The other two appellants are Shri Mannan and Shri Maninuddin, owners of the two trucks involved. 3. The case made out by Revenue is that officers intercepted two trucks carrying MS ingots and runners and risers on 5-2-2008, while carrying such goods. On interrogation of the drivers, they were not able to produce proper documents showing excise duty payment on the said goods. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lties on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules and confiscating the truck as per the proviso to Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 made applicable to Central Excise Act. 4. The Counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, will apply only to any producer, manufacturer or registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer. None of the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k trouble to explain how the documents produced by the appellants, later cannot explain the duty paid nature of the goods seized. 7. Considered arguments of both sides. What I find is that the investigating officers have not been able to identify the factory from which the goods were cleared without payment of duty. The appellants before me are neither a transporter, registered dealer or owner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
