Unauthorized warehouse removal is a separate excise contravention and does not automatically amount to duty evasion.

Unauthorized removal of goods from a bonded warehouse and the resulting stock shortage did not, by themselves, constitute evasion of duty under the general penal provision for non-payment of duty. The conduct was instead treated as a separate contravention of warehouse rules, already dealt with by the penalty imposed and collected under the relevant excise rules. On that basis, no manifest error was shown in the acquittal, and appellate interference was unwarranted. The governing principle is that where the statute separately penalises unauthorized warehouse removal, that conduct cannot be treated as duty evasion without additional material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's conduct in removing goods from a bonded warehouse and causing shortage in stock constituted evasion of duty punishable under Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so as to justify interference with the acquittal.

Analysis: The finding recorded was that the shortage and removal of goods from the warehouse did not, by itself, amount to the offence of evading payment of duty under Section 9(b). The removal of goods contrary to warehouse rules was treated as a distinct offence under Rule 144 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, punishable under Rule 151(c), and the penalty for that contravention had already been imposed and collected. The circumstances therefore did not disclose any manifest error in the acquittal warranting appellate interference.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute separately penalises unauthorized removal from a warehouse, such removal cannot, without more, be treated as evasion of duty under the general penal provision for non-payment of duty.

---