Negligible stock discrepancy under Central Excise law did not justify confiscation or penalty where no evasion was indicated.

A negligible mismatch between physical stock and book stock was treated as insufficient to justify confiscation or penalty under Central Excise law. Minor excesses and shortages in stock verification may be adjusted under Rule 223A, and penal consequences are appropriate only where the variation is substantial or indicates clandestine removal. On the stated facts, the tiny discrepancy did not reasonably support an inference of evasion, so confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a negligible discrepancy between physical stock and book stock justified confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The excess found was extremely small in relation to the total stock and was not of a kind that could reasonably indicate clandestine removal. Rule 223A contemplates adjustment of minor excesses and shortages in stock verification, and penal action is appropriate only where the variation is unduly large or suggestive of evasion. A mere civil liability in the abstract does not justify action on such insignificant facts.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable, and the appeal succeeded.

---