Confiscation of unexplained excisable goods upheld when lawful acquisition was not proved and confiscation was already proposed in notice.

Excisable goods found in a party's premises may be confiscated under Rule 173Q where no documents explain their lawful acquisition and the show cause notice has proposed confiscation; on those facts, confiscation was upheld. On the duty-demand issue, the Tribunal noted that the appellants were not shown to be the manufacturers and that the duty had been voluntarily paid, but the objection that no separate confiscation notice had been served was rejected because the show cause notice itself covered confiscation. The appeal failed, and the order sustaining confiscation of the seized goods was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of seized excisable goods under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was valid when the goods were found in the appellants' and their lawful acquisition was not explained; (ii) Whether confirmation of duty demand against the appellants was unsustainable on the ground that they were not shown to be the manufacturers and no separate notice of confiscation had been served.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of seized excisable goods under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was valid when the goods were found in the appellants' premises and their lawful acquisition was not explained.

Analysis: The goods were recovered from the appellants' premises and were excisable goods. No documents evidencing acquisition of the goods were produced. The show cause notice proposed confiscation and was served on the appellants. Their representative also expressed readiness to pay duty and accept responsibility for the goods if unclaimed by the trading concern. In these circumstances, the unexplained possession of excisable goods justified confiscation under Rule 173Q.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld and was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether confirmation of duty demand against the appellants was unsustainable on the ground that they were not shown to be the manufacturers and no separate notice of confiscation had been served.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the appellants were not shown to be the manufacturers and noted their voluntary payment of duty, which supported the view that duty could not be confirmed against them in the manner adopted by the adjudicating authority. The objection based on absence of a separate confiscation notice was rejected because the show cause notice itself had proposed confiscation.

Conclusion: The challenge to the duty confirmation did not succeed in securing relief for the appellants, and the impugned order was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order confirming confiscation of the seized goods was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Excisable goods found in a party's premises may be confiscated under Rule 173Q when their lawful acquisition is not explained and confiscation has been proposed in the show cause notice served on that party.

---