2001 (8) TMI 421 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.

Confiscation of Goods:
The case involved M/s. Bansal Traders, manufacturers of super enamelled copper wires, where Central Excise Officers found finished goods bearing the brand name "VPI" belonging to another company, seized the goods, and issued a show cause notice (SCN) for confiscation. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, alleging a violation of the SSI scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation for not filing classification/declarations under Rule 173B but set aside the penalty on one individual. The appellant argued that the goods were correctly declared under Rule 173B within the permissible 30-day period from manufacture, thus challenging the confiscation and penalty.

Violation of Rule 173B:
The appellant contended that the goods affixed with the brand name "VPI" were not manufactured beyond the 30-day period before detection, as required by Rule 173B for filing a declaration. The appellant argued that since the goods were detected with the brand name on a specific date, there was no violation of the rule. The Departmental Representative (DR) maintained that the appellants did not file a declaration for goods bearing the brand name "VPI" and wrongly claimed SSI exemption, justifying the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal examined the evidence and found no proof that the goods were manufactured over 30 days before detection, concluding that the date of detection should be considered the date of affixing the brand name. As the 30-day filing period had not lapsed, the violation of Rule 173B was not established, and Rule 226 was deemed inapplicable, leading to setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

This judgment primarily revolved around the correct declaration of goods under Rule 173B, the timing of affixing the brand name "VPI," and the adherence to the prescribed filing period. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the lack of evidence supporting a violation of Rule 173B, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellants.