Rule 57F(2) compliance and excise penalty limits: confiscation upheld, but liability depended on the person's legal role.

Removal of inputs for processing under Rule 57F(2) had to comply with prescribed vouchers and proper accountal, and goods moved without challans and without due records were liable to confiscation. Penalty under Rule 173Q could not be sustained against a job worker who was neither the manufacturer nor the licence holder, and no basis for such liability was established. Separate penalties on a proprietary concern and its proprietor were unwarranted because the concern had no separate legal existence, while personal liability of another individual was supported by evidence of knowledge and participation in removal without vouchers; that penalty was reduced rather than fully upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods sent for processing under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were liable to confiscation for removal without prescribed challans and proper accountal; (ii) whether penalty under Rule 173Q could be sustained against a job worker who was not the manufacturer or licensee; (iii) whether penalties on the proprietor and on another individual under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether goods sent for processing under Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were liable to confiscation for removal without prescribed challans and proper accountal.

Analysis: Rule 57F(2) permits movement of inputs for specified processing subject to conditions imposed by the Collector, including transport under vouchers and maintenance of accounts. The goods were admittedly moved without challans and were not properly accounted for. The explanation that challans could not be issued because of departmental inspection was rejected.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q could be sustained against a job worker who was not the manufacturer or licensee.

Analysis: The second appellant was only a job worker and was not the manufacturer, producer, or warehouse licensee. No clandestine removal or duty liability was fastened on it, and the record did not show the undertakings necessary to justify penal liability on that footing.

Conclusion: Penalty on the job worker under Rule 173Q was not sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties on the proprietor and on another individual under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A were sustainable.

Analysis: A proprietary concern has no existence independent of its proprietor, so separate penalties on both the concern and the proprietor were unwarranted. As to the other individual, the evidence showed knowledge of the excise procedure and participation in removal without vouchers, supporting personal penal liability, though the quantum required reduction.

Conclusion: Penalty on the proprietor was set aside, penalty on the other individual was reduced, and the remaining personal penalty was not sustained in full.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and core adverse findings were maintained, but the penalties were modified by granting substantial relief to the appellants, including setting aside one penalty and reducing others.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 57F(2), removal of inputs for processing must be covered by prescribed vouchers and proper accountal, but penal liability under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A must match the legal status and role of the person proceeded against.

---