2001 (8) TMI 425 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

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

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants, M/s. Bansal Traders, who were engaged in the manufacture of super enamelled copper wires. Central Excise Officers conducted a physical verification at their factory premises and seized finished goods bearing the brand name "VPI" belonging to another company. A show cause notice was issued to explain why the goods should not be confiscated and why a penalty should not be imposed. The adjudicating authority concluded that the branded goods were likely to be removed under the benefit of the SSI scheme without paying the full effective rate of duties, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants and an individual. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation for not filing the required classification/declarations under Rule 173B but set aside the penalty on the individual.

In the appeal, the appellants argued through their advocate that the goods were correctly declared in the classification list filed under Rule 173B within the permissible 30-day period from the date of manufacture. They contended that there was no evidence to prove a violation of Rule 173B as the goods were found to be affixed with the brand name "VPI" within the allowable timeframe. They requested the appeal to be allowed.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the appellants failed to file a declaration stating that the goods were affixed with the brand name "VPI" and that the incorrect declaration was made to claim SSI exemption, justifying the confiscation and penalties imposed by the authorities below.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, it was determined that the only rule potentially violated was Rule 173B, which required a declaration to be filed within 30 days. Since there was no proof that the goods were manufactured beyond the 30-day period from the date of detection of the brand name "VPI," the violation of Rule 173B was not established. Additionally, Rule 226 was found not to be applicable in this case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, overturning the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on the appellants.