Excise prosecution requires proof of statutory breach; later penal provisions and mere ledger irregularities cannot sustain liability.

Prosecution for alleged breach of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules failed because the evidence did not show removal of goods without a valid gate pass or absence of the original copy with the consignment. Section 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked for the alleged April 1973 breach, as that penal provision came into force later, on 1 September 1973. The omission to debit gate passes in the Personal Ledger Account was treated as a procedural irregularity, not evasion of duty, since the record showed duty had already been paid. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged breach of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules was proved and could sustain prosecution under Section 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the non-debiting of gate passes in the Personal Ledger Account amounted to evasion of excise duty.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged breach of Rule 52-A of the Central Excise Rules was proved and could sustain prosecution under Section 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Rule 52-A required excisable goods to be removed only under a valid gate pass, but the evidence did not establish that any goods were delivered without such a gate pass or that the original copy failed to accompany the consignment. The court also noted that Section 9(1)(bb), which penalised removal in contravention of the Act or rules, was inserted with effect from 1 September 1973, whereas the alleged breach related to April 1973. Penal liability could not therefore be founded on that provision for the earlier period.

Conclusion: The alleged breach of Rule 52-A was not proved, and prosecution under Section 9(1)(bb) was not available for the period in question.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-debiting of gate passes in the Personal Ledger Account amounted to evasion of excise duty.

Analysis: The omission to make entries in the Personal Ledger Account was found to be only a procedural irregularity. The evidence showed that duty had in fact been paid on the relevant gate passes, and the record did not establish any non-payment or evasion of duty. On that footing, the irregularity did not amount to an offence warranting conviction.

Conclusion: The non-debiting in the Personal Ledger Account did not amount to evasion of excise duty.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for excise offences must be supported by proof of the statutory breach and cannot rest on a later-inserted penal provision or on a mere procedural irregularity when duty has already been paid.

---