Factory removal under Central Excise Rules requires actual exit from the premises; internal movement alone does not attract confiscation or penalties.

Excisable goods were not treated as removed from the factory where a tanker was found at the weigh-bridge near the gate and the panchnama showed it had not crossed the factory gate. Reading the removal and gate-pass provisions together, the tribunal held that duty and gate-pass requirements arise on actual removal from the factory, not merely on movement within factory . On that factual basis, the alleged contravention of the Central Excise Rules was not established, and confiscation of the goods and truck, as well as penalties, were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excisable goods could be treated as removed from the factory so as to attract contravention of the Central Excise Rules, confiscation of the goods and the truck, and penalties, when the tanker was found at the weigh-bridge near the gate and no gate pass had yet been prepared.

Analysis: The panchnama recorded the seizure location as "at weigh-bridge near the gate" and could not be ignored. Read with the commercial manager's statement, it showed that the tanker was still inside the factory and had not crossed the factory gate. On that factual basis, the goods had only been moved within the factory premises and not actually removed from the factory. The rules governing removal and duty liability had to be read together. Rule 49(1) could not be applied in isolation; it had to be harmonised with Rule 51A, Rule 52A and Rule 173G(2), which indicate that the duty and gate-pass requirements attach upon actual removal from the factory, not merely on movement from a storeroom within the factory. Since the goods remained within the factory, the alleged contraventions were not established.

Conclusion: No contravention of the Central Excise Rules was made out, and the confiscation of the goods and truck as well as the penalties on the appellants were unsustainable.

---