M/S.R.S. Industries vs Ccer, Delhi-Ii
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/1069/2010 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Confiscation of goods under the Central Excise Rules cannot be sustained against a party where the premises from which the goods were seized are not shown to be under its control, the appellant having neither been the lessee of the premises nor carried on business activity there; the appellant not being the owner of the seized goods, a penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed on it in those circumstances.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.284/CD/DLH/2009 dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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.R.S. Industries Appellant
Vs.
CCER, Delhi-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Shashank Singh, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, D.R.
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 21.08.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 54022/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi, upholding confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty confirmed in the adjudication order.
2. Shri Shanshank Singh, the ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the factory premises from where the goods were seized by the Central Excise Department do not belong to the appellant, and as such, confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty on the appellant are not in conformity with the statutory provisions.
3. Per-contra, Shri R.K. Gupta, the ld. D.R. appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. This is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. In the initial ground, this Tribunal vide order dated 20th June, 2006 has remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision on the issue regarding letting out of the house by one Smt. Ritu Aggarwal in favour of the appellant M/s. R.S. Industries. In the said order it has also been recorded that Smt. Ritu Agarwal, the owner of the property has specifically stated that the premises in question has let out to M/s. Moon Beverages Ltd. and not to M/s. R.S. Industries, the appellant herein. In view of the fact that R.S. Industries were not carrying on any business activities in the premises, where search conducted by the Central Excise Officers, confiscation of goods is not proper and justified. Since the appellant is not the owner of the goods as claimed, I am of the view that imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules is also not justified.
6. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free