Confiscation for non-accountal requires proof of intent to evade duty; mere excess stock is insufficient.

Confiscation of excess finished stock under Rule 25(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not justified on mere non-accountal under Rule 10. The provision requires evidence that the contravention was committed with intent to evade duty, or other material showing clandestine removal. Where the record contains no such evidence and only excess stock or absence of entry in records is shown, confiscation cannot be sustained. On that basis, the appellate relief in favour of the assessee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether excess stock of finished goods found in factory premises was liable to confiscation under Rule 25(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged non-accountal under Rule 10, and whether mens rea or intent to evade duty was required.

Analysis: The alleged contravention was only of non-accountal under Rule 10, which is pari materia to Rule 53 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The record disclosed no material showing clandestine removal or any attempt to evade duty. Confiscation under Rule 25(d) is attracted where the contravention is with intent to evade payment of duty, and mere excess stock or non-entry, without supporting evidence of guilty intent, is insufficient to sustain confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the excess goods was not justified, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish the ingredients necessary for confiscation of the excess stock, so the appellate relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation for non-accountal under Rule 25(d) requires evidence of intent to evade duty or clandestine removal, and mere excess stock or absence of entry in records is not enough.

---