Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Tribunal

Metal Engineering And Forging Co. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 17 September, 1999

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Delhi
Metal Engineering And Forging Co. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 17 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 (114) ELT 1018 Tri Del


ORDER

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)

1. The appellants herein are a Handling and Terminal Agent of Central Warehousing Corporation. They had handed over goods alongwith documents including GR to the driver of the truck for delivery at ICD, Kanpur. The driver who brought the truck from Nhava Sheva, Bombay was changed at Ajmer and new driver took over the truck. He reached Kanpur and enquired about the place of delivery, checked up about the address, took the goods to the premises of two different importers namely M/s. MARS International and M/s. Mirza Tanner Ltd. at Kanpur and unloaded the goods at the premises of the above mentioned two persons. The case of the Department is that delivery of goods to premises other than ICD is in contravention of law and that the appellants herein are liable to penalty for their act/omission of not guiding the illiterate driver regarding correct location of destination thereby rendering the imported goods liable to confiscation. For this reason, a penalty of Rs. one lakh has been imposed upon the appellants.

2. We have heard Ms. Reena Khair, ld. Advocate and ld. DR. We find that the statement of the driver was recorded at the earliest in which he has not implicated the appellant. The appellants had told the driver to deliver the goods at no other place other than the ICD at Kanpur but the goods came to be delivered at the factory premises of the importer due to the driver’s mistake and the mistake on the part of the driver has been accepted by the adjudicated authority. The driver stated that he has taken due care within his limited understanding in this background. Therefore, the finding that the G.R. issued in the case is faint and illegible and therefore unable to guide the driver of the container, does not merit acceptance because an illiterate driver would not have been able to read a GP even if it is clear and legible copy. No mala fide can be attributed to the appellants. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that It is not a fit case for imposition of penalty and therefore, set aside the same. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.