2007 (10) TMI 70 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of truck of transporter is not justified when no evidence is on record to show involvement of transporter in the wrong claim of exemption Driver and transporter are not expected to be excise experts & verify the correctness of documents handed over to them by the consigners

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to confiscation of truck with an option to redeem and penalty imposed under Rule 209A.

Analysis:
The case involved a transporter whose truck was confiscated with an option to redeem it by paying a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 209A. The truck was intercepted while transporting goods loaded from a particular premises, but investigations revealed discrepancies in the consigner's details. Proceedings were initiated resulting in the confiscation of the truck and imposition of fines.

Upon review, the Tribunal considered the appellant's plea that the driver, being illiterate, could not verify the documents handed over to him. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention, noting the lack of evidence implicating the appellant in the false exemption claim by the consigner. The Tribunal emphasized that drivers and transporters are not expected to be excise experts and verify the accuracy of consignment documents. As the consignment was accompanied by proper documentation, the appellant was deemed not guilty of any contravention. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the truck and the penalty imposed, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the appellant could not be held responsible for the discrepancies in the consigner's details as the driver and transporter were not obligated to verify such information. The decision highlights the importance of considering the roles and responsibilities of individuals involved in the transportation of goods and emphasizes the need for concrete evidence to establish guilt in such cases.