Limitation and clandestine removal principles barred duty demand and confiscation, while only a reduced compliance penalty survived.

A duty demand under Section 11A was held time-barred where the show cause notice was served after the prescribed six months and the extended period was not invoked. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty for the truck-loaded goods were found unsustainable because the goods matched the invoices and the Department failed to prove clandestine removal or misuse of documents. For the goods found in the factory, confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q were also rejected for want of proof of clandestine removal, but a reduced penalty under Rule 226 was sustained for non-accountal, non-maintenance of records, and failure to obtain the required licence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation because the show cause notice was served beyond six months; (ii) whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable in respect of the truck-loaded goods; (iii) whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable in respect of the goods found in the factory and whether any penalty could be imposed for non-accountal and non-maintenance of records.

Issue (i): Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation because the show cause notice was served beyond six months.

Analysis: Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 required service of the demand notice within six months. The notice was sent by registered post, but the record showed that it was served only after the expiry of six months from the date of removal. Section 37C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 made delivery of the notice by post material for service, and the extended period was not invoked.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was time-barred and is set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable in respect of the truck-loaded goods.

Analysis: The seized goods tallied with the invoices produced at the time of interception, and the Department did not establish that the goods were a second consignment or that the invoices had been misused. In the absence of reliable evidence of clandestine removal, confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was not justified, and penalty could not follow.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty in respect of the truck-loaded goods are unsustainable and are set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable in respect of the goods found in the factory and whether any penalty could be imposed for non-accountal and non-maintenance of records.

Analysis: The goods found in the factory were merely lying there, and no positive act of clandestine removal was proved. Confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules were therefore not warranted. However, non-accountal of the goods, non-maintenance of statutory records, and failure to obtain the required licence were established, justifying a limited penalty under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under Rule 173Q are set aside, but a reduced penalty under Rule 226 is sustained in favour of the assessee only to the extent of the reduction.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the confiscation/penalty under Rule 173Q were annulled, while the matter of the factory-seized goods survived only to the extent of a reduced penalty for regulatory non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand under Section 11A must be served within the prescribed period, and confiscation or penalty for clandestine removal cannot stand unless the Department proves the alleged removal by reliable evidence; mere non-accountal can sustain only the limited penalty provision actually attracted.

---