Mens rea not required for confiscation and penalty under excise rule contravention provisions lacking express intent element.

Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was construed as creating liability for confiscation and penalty without proof of mens rea, because those clauses contain no express requirement of intent to evade duty. The provision was read as covering removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules and non-accountal of goods, where the manufacturer's knowledge is inherent in the prohibited conduct. The reasoning treated such revenue-control measures as imposing absolute liability unless the text itself requires a guilty mind, distinguishing them from clause (d), which does refer to intent. This approach was supported by earlier decisions on similar statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues: Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient for confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The language of Rule 173Q distinguishes clauses (a), (b) and (c) from clause (d). Clauses (a) to (c) do not contain any express requirement of intent to evade duty, unlike clause (d). The provision deals with removal of excisable goods in contravention of the rules and non-accountal of goods, where knowledge of the manufacturer is inherent in the acts complained of. On that construction, the rule creates liability without proof of a guilty mind. The reasoning was supported by earlier judicial decisions holding that similar revenue provisions impose absolute liability and do not require proof of mens rea unless the statute so provides.

Conclusion: Mens rea is not an essential ingredient for confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Ratio Decidendi: Where revenue-control provisions impose confiscation or penalty for contravention and the text omits any requirement of intent, the liability is attracted without proof of mens rea.

---