Intent to evade duty is essential for Rule 173Q confiscation, while Rule 209A penalty may survive separately.

Rule 173Q confiscation, redemption fine and penalty cannot be sustained unless the statutory ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, collusion or other contravention with intent to evade duty are established. Where the finding is that there was no intent to evade duty, the confiscation-based consequences under Rule 173Q fail. Rule 209A operates on a separate footing and applies where a person knows or has reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. On that basis, the distinct penalty under Rule 209A may still be upheld if its own ingredients are met.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether confiscation of the goods, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the finding was that there was no intention to evade duty; (ii) whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained.

Issue (i): whether confiscation of the goods, redemption fine and penalty could be sustained under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the finding was that there was no intention to evade duty.

Analysis: Rule 173Q is expressly made subject to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules 57-I(4) and 57-U(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The provision therefore operates only when the specified contravention under Rule 173Q is coupled with the further ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, collusion or other contravention with intent to evade payment of duty. Although the Tribunal had found that the goods were removed and not accounted for so as to attract clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 173Q, it had also found that the conduct was not suggestive of intent to evade duty. In the absence of the statutory ingredients required by Section 11AC and the linked rules, the basic precondition for invoking Rule 173Q failed.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under Rule 173Q could not be sustained and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained.

Analysis: Rule 209A rests on a different statutory footing and requires a person to know or have reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The failure of the confiscation under Rule 173Q did not by itself eliminate the basis for penalty under Rule 209A. On the evidence, the Tribunal had found the concerned director liable for penalty, but had reduced the amount having regard to the gravity of the conduct. That finding did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 209A was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the fine and penalties imposed under Rule 173Q, while the penalty under Rule 209A remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penal confiscation provision is expressly made subject to Section 11AC-type requirements, the contravention under the confiscation rule can be punished only if the statutory elements of intent to evade duty are also established; a distinct penalty provision may nevertheless survive on its own ingredients.

---