Export consignments stored in unregistered premises: penalty not sustainable where the rules do not require separate registration.

Penalty could not be sustained for failure to register premises used to store consignments cleared for export. The article notes that export removals were made under the prescribed procedure, with invoices issued under Rule 52A and AR-4 applications signed by departmental officers, and that Rule 13 permitted removal under bond without payment of duty. It further states that Section 6 read with Rule 174 did not impose any separate requirement to register the storage premises for export goods. On that basis, the penalty was held unjustified and the order setting it aside was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained for not obtaining registration of the premises used for storing consignments cleared for export.

Analysis: Penalty had been imposed for alleged contravention of Rule 9(1) read with Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant rules were read as governing removal of excisable goods and clearance for export, while Rule 13 supported removal under bond without payment of duty. The goods were cleared for export under invoices issued under Rule 52A and the removals were supported by AR-4 applications signed by departmental officers. It was also held that Section 6 read with Rule 174 did not impose any condition requiring the storage premises for export goods to be separately registered.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and the appellate order setting it aside was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are removed for export under the prescribed export procedure and the governing provisions do not require separate registration of the storage premises, penalty for failure to obtain such registration cannot be sustained.

---