M/S. Achiever International vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 94/CE/D-V/2011 dated 07/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Achiever International Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Appearance:

None for the Appellants

Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 03.2.2015

FINAL ORDER NOS. A/50329 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority held the goods seized are liable for confiscation and consequently duty is payable by M/s. Devinod Trade Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter the goods can be redeemed on payment of Redemption fine of Rs.5,50,000/-.

2. The facts of the case are that a search was conducted at the premises of the appellant on 1.8.06 wherein goods such as CFLs of Leuci Japan brand, Hquaquiang, SKN, Hans, Jewels etc. were found. Same were seized. The appellant could not produce the invoice for procurement of those goods although opportunities were given to the appellant. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that appellant is engaged in procuring and clandestinely removing CFL lights which were allegedly cleared without payment of Central Excise duty. The matter was adjudicated and it was held qua the appellant that goods are liable for confiscation and same can be redeemed after payment of duty by M/s. Devinod Trade Pvt. Ltd., the supplier of goods on payment of redemption fine by appellant of Rs.5,50,000/-. The said order was challenged before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed their appeal filed by the appellant. Therefore, appellant is before me.

3. Today when the mater was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any request has been received. Notice of hearing has been received back with remarks that after inquiry it is found that appellant is not located at the given address. Thereafter records were perused. It was found that several notices were issued to the appellant but all were returned undelivered but this notice was issued to the counsel of the appellant, who also failed to appear before this Tribunal. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant is not interested in pursuing their appeal. Accordingly, same is taken up for disposal on merits.

4. On the other hand, learned AR supports the impugned order and submits that it is an admission of the appellant that goods have been procured by them without any invoice although the goods are branded goods. He further submits that M/s. Devinod Trade Pvt. Ltd.. have admitted their duty liability. In these circumstances, goods are confiscatable. Consequently, redemption fine is imposable on the appellant.

5. I have perused the adjudication order as well as impugned order and the facts of the case are that during the course of search, the 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. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly same is dismissed.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2