Removal of excisable goods without duty payment can sustain conviction where gate passes and proof of payment are absent.

Where excisable goods are supplied under bills that include central excise duty, but the duty is not credited to the department and the required gate passes are not produced, the evidence supports a finding of removal without due payment of duty. In the absence of defence evidence or any explanation showing actual payment of duty or that the consignments were accompanied by gate passes, the conviction is sustainable. The relevant rule also fixes responsibility on the Managing Director for non-payment of duty on the consignments covered by the bills, making managerial liability operative where the default is established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for removal of excisable goods without payment of central excise duty and non-issuance of gate passes was sustainable, and whether the Managing Director was able for the default.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the goods were supplied under bills which included excise duty, but the duty was not credited to the department and the gate passes required under the rules were not produced. In the absence of any defence evidence or explanation to show that the duty had in fact been paid or that the gate passes accompanied the consignments, the concurrent findings of the courts below that excisable goods were removed without due payment of duty were justified. Rule 225 fixed responsibility on the Managing Director for the non-payment of duty on the consignments covered by the bills.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the revision was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed because the findings of illegal removal of excisable goods without duty payment and the petitioner's responsibility as Managing Director were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are shown to have been despatched under bills inclusive of duty but the gate passes and proof of duty payment are not produced, the court may sustain conviction for evasion of excise duty, and the person made responsible by the relevant rule can be held liable.

---