Judgment:
2. These are the appeals against imposition of fine and penalty. In the appeal No. 588/03 a fine of Rs. 80,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed and whereas in the appeal No. 587/03 a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed. The reasons for imposition of the fine and penalty are given in Paras 5.1 and 5.2 of the order-in-original which are reproduced as under: - "5.1 In light of the facts and circumstances, as enumerated above, I find that, the seized goods covered under various LRs issued by the transporter are covered by documents which are found either of different description as shown under accompanied documents or prepared in the name of fake consignors. Noticee No. 1 & No. 2 acquired possession and attempted to transport the excisable goods, under seizure, for which they has reason to believe that the said goods covered with documents which were either of different description as shown under accompanied documents or prepared in the name of fake consignors and issued lorry Receipt for the same.
Noticee No. 1 & No. 2, therefore, have concerned themselves with the said excisable goods which they knew and had reason to believe that the same are liable to confiscation under the provisions of Central Excise Law. It is also apparent from the past records of the transporter that they are habitual offender and used to carry excisable goods without proper invoices as SIX cases have already been booked against the said transporter so far under Central Excise Rules which is evident from records and heavy penalties were imposed by the adjudicating authority looking to the gravity of role played by Noticee No. 1 & 2. Under the circumstances, this is seventh continuous similar offence has been committed by Noticee No. 1 & 2.
Noticee No. 1 & 2, who are a habitual offender inasmuch as they acted in convenience with the manufacturer of the excisable goods for transporting of the excisable goods removed in illicit manner by the manufacturer. They associated with the manufacturer for safe transit of the clandestine removal of excisable goods as they booked and attempted to transport the excisable goods, which were removed without cover of valid documents clandestinely. Since, this is not the first instance, where they were booked under Central Excise but for the similar action, SIX Central Excise cases were booked in past and therefore, it appears that they had enough knowledge in respect of the precaution they needed to be remain vigilant however, they acted in connivance with manufacturer for transportation of excisable goods removed clandestinely in contravention of various provisions of Central Excise Act and rules framed thereunder, and thereby they concerned themselves in transporting the excisable goods for which they had reason to believe that the same were liable for confiscation under Central Excise law. Therefore, looking to the gravity of role played by Noticee No. 17 No. 2 in abating the manufacturer of excisable goods for evasion of duty of excise, heavy penal action is warranted as well as I am of the opinion that they are liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of Central Excise Act.
5.2 As regard, the Confiscation of vehicles for the said two trucks bearing registration No. MR-38B 5353 and MR-55 4400 which were used for transporting the goods, in light of the fact discussed in para 5.1, the transporter and Shri Jaikishan Bala are habitual offender, and thy were well aware about the fact that transportation of such excisable goods removed in contravention of the provisions of central excise law, and the goods were liable for confiscation, inasmuch as this is an similar nature of offence committed by them for seventh time. Accordingly, the vehicles i.e. two trucks bearing registration No. HR-38B 5353 and HR-55 4400 were intentionally utilised for illicit movement of excisable goods, and therefore, I find that the same are liable to be confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 as made applicable to the Central Excise like matter under Section 12 of the Act." 3. Thus, I find that while imposing the fine and penalty, the Adjudicating Authority has clearly found the appellant habitual offender. The appellants cannot claim ignorance of law as they are the regular transporters and keep or transporting the excisable goods in question. The penalty on the transporters has been substantially reduced by the Commissioner (A). The value of the trucks seized is stated to be Rs. 3.20 Lakhs. Looking to the value of the trucks the fine of Rs. 80,000/- is merely 25% of the value of the goods.
Therefore, I do not consider the fine as unreasonable. I, therefore, do not find any merits in the appeals filed by the appellants. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.