Excess stock and unretracted admission justified confiscation and penalty under the excise stock-maintenance rules.

Excess excisable goods found during stock verification, coupled with an unretracted admission by the authorised signatory under Section 14, was treated as sufficient to establish irregular stock maintenance. The verification was not rejected merely because it used the dip reading method, since the assessee itself maintained stock on the same basis. On those facts, the conditions for confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) were held satisfied, and the redemption fine and penalties were found reasonable in light of the value of the excess goods. The confiscation and penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether excess stock found on verification, admitted by the authorised signatory and supported by the records, justified confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty under the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The stock verification was not discredited merely because it followed the dip reading method, since the appellants themselves maintained stock on the same basis. The authorised signatory's statement recorded under Section 14, admitting the excess stock, was not retracted. On these facts, irregular maintenance of stock accounts stood established and the conditions attracting Rule 25(1)(b) were satisfied. The redemption fine and penalties were also found to be reasonable having regard to the value of the excess goods.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the excess goods and the penalties imposed were upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excess excisable goods are found on verification and the admission of the authorised signatory remains unretracted, irregular stock maintenance is established and confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) are justified.

---