Confiscation for unlawful excise removal upheld where goods left the factory before duty payment under Rule 9(2).

Goods removed in breach of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 remained liable to confiscation under Rule 9(2) even though duty and penalty were recoverable from the manufacturer or producer. The rule treated unauthorised removal before payment of duty as a statutory violation, and the liability of the goods to confiscation was not displaced by the fact that the purchaser was not personally liable for duty or penalty. On that basis, confiscation was upheld as consistent with Rule 9(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether goods removed in contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be confiscated under Rule 9(2) even though the duty and penalty were recoverable from the manufacturer or producer and not from the purchaser.

Analysis: Rule 9(1) prohibited removal of excisable goods from the place of manufacture until duty was paid, and the admitted facts showed a breach of that restriction. Rule 9(2) expressly provided that where goods were deposited in or removed in contravention of sub-rule (1), the manufacturer or producer would be liable to pay duty and penalty and the goods themselves would be liable to confiscation. The fact that the purchaser was not personally liable for duty or penalty did not affect the statutory liability of the goods to confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was valid under Rule 9(2), and the challenge to it failed.

---