Confiscation without mala fide intent is unsustainable, but budget-day removal after cut-off attracts enhanced duty.

Confiscation of chassis under Rule 173Q was unsustainable because duty had been paid, gate passes had been issued before the relevant cut-off, and no mala fide intention to evade duty was found; the confiscation was therefore set aside. By contrast, where the goods were actually removed from the factory after 5 P.M. on the budget date, the special budget-day rule applied and duty was payable at the enhanced rate introduced in the budget. The demand at the enhanced rate was accordingly confirmed. The result was partial relief to the assessee, with confiscation annulled but the duty demand sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of chassis was sustainable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the absence of mala fide intention to evade duty; (ii) Whether duty was payable at the enhanced rate introduced by the budget where the goods were removed from the factory after 5 P.M. on the budget date.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of chassis was sustainable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the absence of mala fide intention to evade duty.

Analysis: Duty had already been paid and gate passes had been issued before 5 P.M. on the relevant date. The finding recorded was that there was no mala fide intention, and therefore the non-removal of the goods could not be treated as an act done with a view to evading duty. In the absence of the requisite intention to evade duty, confiscation could not be justified under Rule 173Q.

Conclusion: Confiscation was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether duty was payable at the enhanced rate introduced by the budget where the goods were removed from the factory after 5 P.M. on the budget date.

Analysis: Removal for the purpose of Rule 9 means removal from the place where the goods are produced or from the premises appurtenant thereto. Removal from a bonded store room did not amount to removal in terms of Rule 9. Since the goods were actually removed from the factory after 5 P.M. on the budget date, their clearance attracted Rule 223A, which governed removals after the prescribed time on budget day and contemplated payment of duty at the enhanced rate, if introduced in the budget.

Conclusion: The demand at the enhanced rate was correctly confirmed and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained on the duty demand, but confiscation was annulled, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there is no mala fide intention to evade duty, confiscation under the relevant excise confiscation provision is unsustainable, but clearance after the specified budget-day cut-off is governed by the special rule requiring duty at the enhanced rate.

---