Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Confiscation of Goods: Clarification on "Accounting for" Requirement

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to set aside the confiscation of goods under Rule 173Q. The Tribunal clarified that the term "accounting for" does not require goods to be entered in the accounts but places the burden on the manufacturer to demonstrate the existence of goods or provide a valid explanation for their absence. As Rule 226, which deals with goods not entered in the account, was not cited in the show cause notice, the Tribunal found Rule 173Q inapplicable in this case.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the confiscation of goods u/r 173Q for non-accounting in the RG 1 register and the interpretation of the term "accounting for" in the context of excisable goods.

Confiscation under Rule 173Q:
The departmental officers found 363 kilograms of paracetamol not entered in the RG 1 register during a visit to the manufacturer's premises. A notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods u/r 173Q. The Assistant Collector ordered confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of fine. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation stating that there was no mens rea as the goods were manufactured on the same day as the visit. The appeal challenges this decision, arguing that non-accounting in the register triggers Rule 173Q.

Interpretation of "Accounting for":
The appeal contends that the phrase "accounting for" in Rule 173Q should include goods physically present but not entered in the accounts. However, the Tribunal disagrees, stating that "accounting for" does not equate to "entered in the account." It clarifies that the rule places the burden on the manufacturer to show the existence of goods or provide a valid explanation for their absence. The Tribunal notes that applying the Commissioner's interpretation would create redundancy with Rule 226, which deals with goods not entered in the account. Since Rule 226 was not cited in the show cause notice, the Tribunal upholds the Commissioner's decision to set aside the confiscation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismisses the appeal, maintaining that the provisions of Rule 173Q were not applicable in this case due to the interpretation of "accounting for" and the absence of mention of Rule 226 in the show cause notice.

---