Confiscation of raw material and work-in-progress goods cannot stand without statutory power or proof of clandestine removal.

Confiscation of raw material and goods in work in progress was held unsustainable where no specific provision authorised such confiscation and no evidence supported clandestine removal. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority lacked power to confiscate these items, that there was no corroborating evidence of evasion, and that no Cenvat credit had been availed on the raw material. It further found that the goods could not be treated as excisable goods under Rule 2(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation could be sustained in respect of raw material and goods in work in progress when there was no specific provision for such confiscation and no evidence of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The appeal arose under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal had affirmed the finding that the adjudicating authority had no power to confiscate the raw material and goods in work in progress. It also found that there was no proved clandestine removal, no corroborating evidence, no cenvat credit had been availed on the raw material, and the goods in question could not be treated as excisable goods within Rule 2(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the raw material and goods in work in progress was not sustainable, and the appeal was dismissed.

---