Non-accountal of excisable goods can sustain confiscation and penalty where no bona fide explanation is shown.

Non-accountal of excisable goods in statutory records can justify confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the lapse is not shown to be a bona fide mistake. The tribunal rejected the contention that mala fide intention had to be separately proved for invocation of the penal rule, and relied on precedent supporting penal action for non-accountal. It also treated the confiscation provision as expressly covering such non-accountal. Confiscation and penalty were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained for non-accountal of goods in the statutory records.

Analysis: The non-accountal of waste and scrap in the statutory records was not disputed. The contention that Rule 173Q could not be invoked without proof of mala fide intention was rejected on the facts, as there was nothing to show a bona fide mistake or bona fide lapse. The cited precedent supporting invocation of Rule 173Q for non-accountal was followed, and Rule 226 was also relied upon as expressly providing for confiscation in cases of non-accountal.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld, and the challenge to the order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-accountal of excisable goods in statutory records can justify confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the absence of a bona fide explanation does not bar invocation of the penal provisions.

---