Confiscation and redemption fine can survive provisional release, while duty-free clearance with evasion intent justifies penalty.

Offending excisable goods transported without duty-paying documents remained liable to confiscation, and provisional release did not by itself bar redemption fine even though the goods were not available at adjudication; the redemption fine was therefore sustained. Clearance of excisable goods outside the factory without payment of duty, coupled with evasion intent, justified penalty, and the distinction from cases involving no clandestine removal was accepted. The appellate order setting aside confiscation, redemption fine and penalty was reversed, and the original adjudication order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether redemption fine could be sustained where the offending goods had been seized and released provisionally and were not available at the time of adjudication; (ii) whether penalty was imposable for clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty.

Issue (i): whether redemption fine could be sustained where the offending goods had been seized and released provisionally and were not available at the time of adjudication

Analysis: The goods were admittedly seized while being transported without duty-paying documents and were liable to confiscation. The fact that they had been released provisionally did not take away the power to impose redemption fine. The governing principle applied was that non-availability of the offending goods does not by itself prevent confiscation or the levy of redemption fine.

Conclusion: Redemption fine was rightly held to be imposable and the order setting it aside was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether penalty was imposable for clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty

Analysis: The goods were cleared outside the factory without payment of duty, showing an intention to evade duty. The facts were distinguished from cases involving no clandestine removal. On those facts, penalty was justified.

Conclusion: Penalty was liable to be sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order setting aside confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty was reversed, and the order-in-original was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Offending excisable goods remain liable to confiscation and redemption fine even if not physically available after provisional release, and clearance of such goods without payment of duty justifies penalty where evasion is established.

---