Duty debit and proof of duty-paid goods determine excise liability, with confiscation sustained and penalty reduced.

Duty demand was unsustainable where the record showed prior debit of duty in RG 23A Part II for goods cleared under the relevant gate passes, and that demand was set aside. The remaining demands on CTD bars, channels, flats, angles and M.S. flats were upheld because the assessees failed to substantiate their claim of another owner or duty-paid receipt with reliable correlation of challans, gate passes, vehicle numbers and quantities, and compliance with the procedure for bringing duty-paid goods into the premises was not shown. Confiscation of the seized M.S. channels, angles and flats was sustained, while the penalty was reduced as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demand of Rs. 43,909 on goods cleared under Gate Pass Nos. 511 to 517 was sustainable when duty had allegedly already been debited. (ii) Whether the duty demands of Rs. 1,37,846.62 and Rs. 6,80,207.47 on the remaining quantities of CTD bars, channels, flats, angles and M.S. flats were liable to be confirmed. (iii) Whether confiscation of the seized M.S. channels, angles and flats and the penalty were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand of Rs. 43,909 on goods cleared under Gate Pass Nos. 511 to 517 was sustainable when duty had allegedly already been debited.

Analysis: The duty debit entries in RG 23A Part II were made on 3-10-1990, and the delay was explained by the intervening holiday on 2-10-1990. The record showed that the duty had already been debited for the cleared goods, and the Revenue did not controvert this position.

Conclusion: The duty demand of Rs. 43,909 was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demands of Rs. 1,37,846.62 and Rs. 6,80,207.47 on the remaining quantities of CTD bars, channels, flats, angles and M.S. flats were liable to be confirmed.

Analysis: The quantities on which duty was demanded were traced to the appellants' own delivery challans and private records. The plea that most of the goods belonged to another concern was not supported by reliable correlation, and the claim that certain consignments were duty paid also failed for want of matching gate passes, vehicle numbers and quantity correlation. The explanation was held to be an afterthought, and the requirement of permission under Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules was not satisfied for bringing duty paid goods into the premises.

Conclusion: The duty demands of Rs. 1,37,846.62 and Rs. 6,80,207.47 were correctly confirmed against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of the seized M.S. channels, angles and flats and the penalty were justified.

Analysis: The seized goods were similar to the goods manufactured by the appellants, and the documents relied upon did not establish that the appellants lacked capacity to manufacture the seized sizes or that the goods had been validly brought in as duty paid goods. The confiscation was therefore sustained. In view of partial relief on the first duty demand, the penalty was considered excessive and required reduction.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of deleting one duty demand and reducing the penalty, while the remaining duty demands and confiscation were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand cannot survive where the record shows prior debit and payment of duty, but disputed claims of ownership or duty-paid character must be proved by reliable correlation and compliance with the prescribed procedure; absent such proof, the duty demand and confiscation may be sustained.

---