Duty-paid raw material is not excisable goods for confiscation when held by a user, not a manufacturer.

Rule 209(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules applies only where a manufacturer fails to account for excisable goods manufactured, produced or stored by him. Duty-paid material received by a user and lying as raw material does not fall within that scope, and it cannot be treated as excisable goods for confiscation under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, excess raw material found in the respondent's factory was outside Rule 209(1)(b), and the confiscation order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 209(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules could be invoked to confiscate excess raw material found in the respondent's factory, and whether such duty-paid material could be treated as excisable goods for that purpose.

Analysis: The liability under Rule 209(1)(b) arises where a manufacturer fails to account for excisable goods manufactured, produced, or stored by him. The respondent was only a user of the material and was neither the producer nor a registered dealer. The goods had been received after due payment of duty and were lying as raw material. In that situation, they could not be treated as excisable goods within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for invoking confiscation under Rule 209(1)(b).

Conclusion: Rule 209(1)(b) was inapplicable, and the order of confiscation could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 209(1)(b) applies only to a manufacturer's failure to account for excisable goods manufactured, produced, or stored by him, and does not extend to duty-paid goods held merely as raw material by a user.

---