Private removal of warehoused goods attracts excise liability, and concurrent factual findings will not be reopened in writ jurisdiction.

Rule 151(d) of the Central Excise Rules was construed to cover private removal or concealment of goods both before and after warehousing, so the reference to goods "warehoused" did not limit liability to goods not yet warehoused. On the facts, the excise authorities had concurrently found that duty-paid tobacco had been substituted with non-duty tobacco, and that factual finding was supported by evidence. The High Court held that, absent jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, or absence of evidence, it would not reappraise the record in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The demand of duty and penalty was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's substitution and removal of duty-paid tobacco attracted liability under Rule 151(d) of the Central Excise Rules, and whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with the concurrent factual findings and consequential demand and penalty.

Analysis: Rule 151(d) was construed to cover private removal or concealment of goods either before or after warehousing; the reference to goods "warehoused" in the opening part of the rule was held to qualify the person liable and not to confine the clause to a situation where the goods were not yet warehoused. On the facts, the excise authorities had concurrently found that duty-liable tobacco had been substituted with non-duty tobacco, and there was no shown want of jurisdiction, procedural illegality, or absence of evidence. In writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to reappraise the factual findings as if in appeal.

Conclusion: The substitution fell within Rule 151(d), and the demand of duty and penalty were sustained; interference under Article 226 was not warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Private removal or concealment of warehoused goods is punishable under Rule 151(d) even after warehousing, and concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence will not be re-opened in writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional or procedural error.

---