No liability under Rule 173Q where seized goods were shown to be manufactured by other concerns, so redemption fine failed.

Liability under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the seizure record showed that the goods found in the respondent's premises had been manufactured by other concerns. On that factual basis, the essential foundation for attributing a contravention to the respondent was missing, so the redemption fine was not justified. The impugned order was therefore affirmed on merits and the Revenue's challenge failed, with relief to the respondent left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether redemption fine could be sustained and liability fastened under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the detained goods were not manufactured by the respondent.

Analysis: The detention memo and annexure showed that the goods seized from the respondent's premises were manufactured by other concerns. On that factual basis, the essential foundation for attributing a contravention to the respondent was absent. In the absence of proof that the goods were manufactured by the respondent, no liability could be imposed under Rule 173Q, and the redemption fine could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The setting aside of the redemption fine was upheld and the appeal of the Revenue failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was affirmed on merits, with no interference in the relief granted to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized goods are shown not to have been manufactured by the noticee, liability for contravention under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be sustained.

---