Confiscation for delayed register entries was rejected, while a disproportionate penalty for compliance lapse was reduced.

Goods found within the factory were not liable to confiscation or redemption fine where the record showed only delayed statutory entries and no evidence of clandestine removal. On those facts, confiscation could not be sustained and the redemption fine was set aside. A penalty for delayed entry or imperfect maintenance of statutory registers was nonetheless available, but it had to reflect the gravity of the lapse. Because the delay was brief and the circumstances showed no serious evasion, the original penalty was treated as harsh and disproportionate and was substantially reduced to a token amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods lying within the factory, where the evidence showed only a delay in making statutory entries and no attempt to clandestinely remove goods, were liable to confiscation and redemption fine. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed for delayed entry or non-maintenance of statutory registers was excessive and required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether goods lying within the factory, where the evidence showed only a delay in making statutory entries and no attempt to clandestinely remove goods, were liable to confiscation and redemption fine.

Analysis: The material on record showed entries relating to inputs in the registers and only a delay in entering the manufactured goods in the statutory records. In the absence of any attempt to clandestinely remove the goods, confiscation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods and the redemption fine were set aside, in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for delayed entry or non-maintenance of statutory registers was excessive and required reduction.

Analysis: Though violation of statutory register requirements could attract penalty, the gravity of the lapse and surrounding facts had to be considered. The delay was only for a few days and the levy of a heavy penalty was found to be harsh and disproportionate. A token penalty was considered sufficient as a deterrent.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 10,000, in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation and redemption fine was annulled, and the monetary penalty was substantially reduced, resulting in only limited relief to the Appellant.

---