Duty-paid clearance and prescribed removal procedure cannot be displaced by local practice; confiscation, fine, and penalty were upheld.

Excisable goods could not be removed from licensed without duty payment or the prescribed gate-pass procedure, and local practice or the absence of weighing machinery could not override the statutory requirement. A lawful route existed to obtain permission from the jurisdictional officer for weighment outside the premises, but it was not used. Removal in breach of the procedure was therefore unauthorised, and the confiscation was sustained. The redemption fine and penalty were also maintained because their quantum was not shown to be unreasonable or excessive on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether removal of excisable goods without proper gate pass and without payment of duty could be justified on the ground of local practice and lack of weighing machinery, and whether the redemption fine and penalty were excessive.

Analysis: The appellants removed manufactured goods without following the prescribed procedure. A lawful mechanism existed for obtaining permission from the jurisdictional officer to take goods out of the licensed premises for weighment, but it was not used. Rule 49 required clearance of manufactured goods only on payment of duty. Local practice of making post-removal entries or carrying goods out for weighment could not override the statutory requirement. The prescribed fine was linked to the value of the goods, and on the facts the quantum of fine and penalty was not shown to be unreasonable or excessive.

Conclusion: The removal was unauthorised, and the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were upheld. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory requirement for duty-paid clearance cannot be defeated by local practice or convenience, and where goods are removed in breach of the prescribed procedure, redemption fine and penalty may be sustained if not shown to be excessive.

---