Dynamic Construction Ltd v Revenue & Customs  UKVAT(Excise) E00980 (14 August 2006)
EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of Ford Transit subject to payment of restoration fee – Appellant's vehicle was run on red diesel – Appellant sought to distance itself by placing the blame on an employee who admitted the misuse – The directors' behaviour suggested that they knew that red diesel was being used in the vehicle – Appellant provided no information about steps taken to prevent misuse and of disciplinary action taken against the employee – was the decision to offer conditional restoration of the vehicle reasonable – yes – Appeal dismissed.
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE
DYNAMIC CONSTRUCTION LTD Appellant
- and -
HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE and CUSTOMS Respondents
Tribunal: MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE (Chairman)
MARJORIE KOSTICK BA FCA CTA (Member)
Sitting in public in Birmingham 6 July 2006
Appellant did not appear
Claire Chapman, Counsel instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue & Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006
"My employee who admitted putting the red diesel in the van also admitted he was given the cash to go to the garage. I feel I did all I could to ensure proper diesel was used".
The Hearing on 6 July 2006
(1) This was the second occasion when the Appellant had failed to prosecute its Appeal.
(2) The Appellant did not specifically request an adjournment of the Appeal in its letter of 6 July 2006.
(3) There were no good reasons to delay the hearing of the Appeal.
The Review Decision dated 8 August 2005
(1) Mr Mountney's admission that he ran the Ford Transit deliberately on red diesel and that he knew he was committing an offence.
(2) The directors of the Appellant company failed to co-operate with the inspection of the Ford Transit by Customs Officers by refusing to witness the inspection and to hand over the keys to the vehicle.
(3) The Appellant did not provide information about what steps it took before or after the incident to prevent the illicit use of red diesel by its employees.
(4) No information has been forthcoming from the Appellant about disciplinary action taken against Mr Mountney.
(5) The Appellant has not explained how it accounted for the discrepancy in the red diesel stocks.
(6) The Appellant as an employer was responsible for the actions of its employees when engaged on company's business.
MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE
RELEASE DATE: 14 August 2006