Successful appeal for non-manufacturer users due to lack of clarity in order for confiscation under Rule 25(1).

The appeal succeeded as the appellants, being users and not manufacturers, were not subject to confiscation under Rule 25(1) for non-accountal of excisable goods. The Commissioner's order lacked clarity on the specific clause justifying confiscation, and despite proper accountal, the order for confiscation was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential reliefs in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues:
The appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise involving confiscation of partially oriented yarn (POY) under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and imposition of penalties.

Summary:
The appellants procured POY from indigenous sources for their 100% EOU, not properly accounted for in their Bond register. Despite entries in the stores register, the stock was found in the factory's store room. The Commissioner applied Rule 25 for confiscation and penalties, even though the seized goods tallied with D-3 declarations.

The key question was whether confiscation under Rule 25 could be justified, specifically under clause (b) regarding non-accountal of excisable goods. The rule applies to manufacturers, not users like the appellants. The Commissioner's order lacked clarity on the specific clause justifying confiscation.

As the appellants were users, not manufacturers, Rule 25(1) regarding non-accountal of excisable goods did not apply to them. Despite the Commissioner's finding of proper accountal, the order for confiscation based on non-accountal was unsustainable.

The appeal succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential reliefs in accordance with the law.

---