TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained in respect of excisable goods found unaccounted in the factory but not removed from the premises; (ii) Whether penalty for non-accountal of excisable goods was liable to be interfered with.
Issue (i): Whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained in respect of excisable goods found unaccounted in the factory but not removed from the premises.
Analysis: The non-accountal of the excisable goods was not disputed, but the goods were still within the factory and had not reached the stage of removal. On that footing, the power of confiscation under Rule 173Q was treated as inapplicable. The reasoning followed the view that confiscation is not attracted where the goods remain in the factory and are not yet removed.
Conclusion: The confiscation and redemption fine were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty for non-accountal of excisable goods was liable to be interfered with.
Analysis: The evidence established non-accountal of the excisable goods. The explanation offered for the lapse did not displace the finding of contravention, and the reduced penalty imposed in appeal was regarded as reasonable.
Conclusion: The penalty was upheld against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: Relief was granted only to the extent of removing confiscation and redemption fine, while the penalty for non-accountal remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under Rule 173Q is not attracted to excisable goods found within the factory and not yet removed, though penalty may still be imposed for established non-accountal.
TaxTMI 
