Absolute confiscation of non-duty-paid excisable goods follows the goods even in a bona fide purchaser's hands.

Excisable goods removed without payment of duty remain liable to confiscation and seizure even after transfer to a bona fide purchaser, because the statutory liability attaches to the offending goods themselves and is not defeated by change of ownership. The purchaser's innocence is irrelevant, and the confiscatory consequence is treated as absolute rather than dependent on mens rea. The seizure power is also valid, since the excise law incorporates customs seizure provisions to enable officers to seize goods reasonably believed to be liable to confiscation. The constitutional challenge fails because the power operates only on offending goods and serves revenue enforcement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excisable goods removed without payment of duty remain liable to seizure and confiscation even after passing into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value; (ii) Whether the seizure of such goods was invalid or unconstitutional.

Issue (i): Whether excisable goods removed without payment of duty remain liable to seizure and confiscation even after passing into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value.

Analysis: Rule 9(1) prohibited removal of excisable goods without payment of duty, and Rule 9(2) made goods so removed liable to confiscation. The liability attached to the offending goods themselves and was not lost merely because they later passed into the possession or ownership of a third party. The innocence or bona fides of the purchaser was held to be irrelevant, because otherwise the statutory scheme could be defeated by transferring non-duty-paid goods after illegal removal. The confiscatory liability was treated as absolute and not dependent on mens rea.

Conclusion: The goods remained liable to seizure and confiscation notwithstanding transfer to a bona fide purchaser; the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure of such goods was invalid or unconstitutional.

Analysis: Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 authorised application of customs provisions, including Section 110 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962, under which the proper officer could seize goods having reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. The seizure power was upheld as a reasonable measure in public interest to enforce the excise law and protect revenue. The constitutional challenge under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 19(1)(g) was rejected because the power operated only on offending goods and was justified by the statutory objective.

Conclusion: The seizure was lawful and not unconstitutional; the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because non-duty-paid excisable goods could be seized and confiscated even in the hands of an innocent purchaser, and the statutory seizure power was upheld as valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Excisable goods removed in contravention of the duty-payment rule carry an absolute liability to confiscation that follows the goods into whosoever hands they come, and the customs-based seizure power validly applies to such offending goods in aid of revenue enforcement.

---