Pre-notice duty payment can defeat excise penalty, but knowledge-based liability and vehicle confiscation depend on statutory proof.

Penalty under Rule 173Q was considered unsustainable where the duty on removed goods had already been paid before the show-cause notice, but confiscation of the goods and redemption fine were supported because the removal occurred without duty payment and without invoice. Penalty under Rule 209A was upheld against the lorry driver, as transporting excisable goods removed without duty-paying documents was sufficient to infer the requisite knowledge or belief. Confiscation of the lorry was set aside because no evidence established the owner's direct or indirect role, knowledge, or involvement in the illegal transport, which was necessary to satisfy the statutory condition for confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained when the duty had been paid before issuance of the show-cause notice; (ii) Whether the lorry driver was liable to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for transporting excisable goods removed without duty-paying documents; (iii) Whether the lorry was liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be sustained when the duty had been paid before issuance of the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The duty on the removed goods had already been paid long before the show-cause notice. In such circumstances, penalty under Rule 173Q was held to be unsustainable, following the principle that once the duty liability is discharged before notice, the penal provision could not be invoked on that basis. The confiscation of the goods and the redemption fine were, however, treated as justified because the goods had admittedly been removed from the factory without payment of duty and without invoice.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the lorry driver was liable to penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for transporting excisable goods removed without duty-paying documents.

Analysis: A person who physically deals with excisable goods that are liable to confiscation, and who has the requisite knowledge or belief as to that liability, attracts Rule 209A. The driver was transporting goods removed from the factory without duty-paying documents, and the circumstances were sufficient to infer knowledge for the purpose of the rule.

Conclusion: The penalty on the lorry driver under Rule 209A was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the lorry was liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act read with Section 12 of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: Confiscation of a conveyance requires material showing the owner's direct or indirect role, or at least knowledge, in the illegal transportation of offending goods. The finding of the original authority that there was no evidence of such role on the part of the vehicle owner remained undisturbed. In the absence of evidence establishing knowledge or involvement, the essential condition for confiscation of the vehicle was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the lorry and the redemption fine were set aside in favour of the vehicle owner.

Final Conclusion: The decision granted relief on the penalty against the manufacturer and on the confiscation of the vehicle, while maintaining the penalty on the driver.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty and confiscation under these excise provisions depend on the statutory conditions being independently satisfied, including the requisite knowledge or culpability where the provision so requires, and a pre-notice discharge of duty can render the related penalty unsustainable.

---