COOLWELS AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are filed against the order -in -appeal dt. 25 -3 -04 which upheld the order -in -original confirming the demand of duty and imposition of penalties and also confiscation of goods and truck.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are the Preventive Officers of Central Excise intercepted a vehicle on 22 -11 -2000 and on demand, driver could not produce any duty paying documents for 92 boxes loaded in the said vehicle. After recording the statement of driver and Panchnama, in a follow -up action on 22 -11 -2000, the officers visited the factory premises of the appellant and conducted further investigation. On conclusion of such investigation, the revenue issued SCN to the appellants directing them to show cause as to why duty should not be demanded on the goods seized and also why the penalties should be imposed on them in addition to confiscation of the said seized goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties and also confiscated the goods and truck with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred the views. Hence this appeal.

(3.) LD . Authorised Representative of the Adv. appearing for the appellant submits that appellant No. 1 is the company while the appellant No. 2 is the Manager of the company on whom the personal penalty is imposed. It is his submission that the seizure of the goods by Panchnama dt. 22 -11 -2000 is incorrect and there were no statements of the drivers recorded. It is his submission that when there is no valid seizure or any valid statement, the whole issue is vitiated in law. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of State v. Yakub Ahmed reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.) and in the case of Satpushp Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 105 (Del).