Unpaid duty before clearance can trigger confiscation, but shortage-based excise demand needs reasoned scrutiny of stock reconciliation.

Removal of excisable goods without duty debit or payment before clearance attracts confiscation and penalty, even if transport documents are produced later; however, the redemption fine may be moderated where the movement of goods is otherwise documented. A duty demand based on alleged shortage and clandestine removal cannot stand without a reasoned examination of the assessee's stock reconciliation and opening balance, and any related penalty must also await that finding. Confiscation was upheld with reduced redemption fine, while the shortage-based demand and consequential penalty were remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether 1002 pairs of shoes removed without duty debit/payment before clearance were liable to confiscation and whether the redemption fine and penalty required modification. (ii) Whether the demand of duty on the alleged shortage of 501 pairs of Ultimo shoes and 1067 pairs of Match-II shoes was sustainable and whether the related penalty could stand.

Issue (i): Whether 1002 pairs of shoes removed without duty debit/payment before clearance were liable to confiscation and whether the redemption fine and penalty required modification.

Analysis: The goods were removed without payment of duty at the time of removal, and the duty was debited only later when the goods were re-despatched. Compliance with transport documents did not cure the failure to discharge duty liability before clearance. On that basis, the contravention of the removal and accounting requirements under the Central Excise Rules attracted confiscation and penalty. At the same time, the circumstances showing documentary support for the movement of goods were relevant to the quantum of redemption fine.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty on the alleged shortage of 501 pairs of Ultimo shoes and 1067 pairs of Match-II shoes was sustainable and whether the related penalty could stand.

Analysis: The stock shortage was based on a reconciliation that contained a disputed opening balance, and the appellants produced reconciliation statements asserting double entry in the stock records. Those materials were not properly examined by the adjudicating authority, and no reasoned finding was recorded on why the reconciliation was unacceptable. In the absence of a speaking evaluation of the reconciliation, the duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained at that stage. Since the penalty on this limb depended upon the finding on clandestine removal, it also could not be finally affirmed without fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The duty demand on this issue was set aside for fresh consideration and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on the shortage and related penalty.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained only to the extent of confiscation with reduced redemption fine, while the demand based on alleged shortage and the consequential penalty were sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Removal of excisable goods without payment/debit of duty before clearance renders the goods liable to confiscation and penalty, but a demand founded on alleged clandestine removal cannot be sustained without a reasoned examination of the assessee's reconciliation of stock records.

---