Clerical non-debit in excise records cannot sustain duty demand, confiscation, or penalty without proof of evasion.

A mere clerical or technical non-debit in RG 23A Part II, without evidence of clandestine removal, shortage, or actual duty evasion, does not support confirmation of duty demand under excise law. Where the record showed sufficient balance to cover the duty, and contemporaneous documents and interception circumstances did not establish suppression or illegal clearance, the lapse was treated as a technical error rather than a substantive breach. On that footing, confiscation of goods and conveyances, and related penalties, could not be sustained once the underlying duty demand failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand, confiscation of goods and conveyances, and penalties could be sustained where the alleged non-debit in RG 23A Part II was only a clerical or technical lapse and the circumstances did not establish evasion or shortage.

Analysis: The goods in question were found in transit pursuant to invoice entries already prepared, and the record showed sufficient balance in RG 23A Part II to cover the duty. The later production of the invoice copy, together with the Panchas' signatures and debit particulars, supported the view that the omission to make an immediate entry was only a clerical lapse. In respect of the sacks, the contemporaneous challans, the timing of the removal, and the interception of the truck near the job worker's premises did not establish clandestine clearance. The explanation that the non-debit arose from confusion created by searches and seizures was accepted, and no material remained to support an inference of duty evasion. Once the duty demand itself was not sustainable, confiscation and penalties under the excise provisions also could not survive. The reliance on the Board's circular against booking purely technical offences further supported this conclusion.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable, and the confiscation and penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere technical or clerical non-debit, without proof of clandestine removal or actual duty evasion, does not justify confirmation of duty demand, confiscation, or penalty under the excise law.

---