Non-accountal of excisable goods justifies confiscation, while procedural lapse and no clandestine removal can reduce fine and penalty.

Non-accountal of veneers under the self-removal regime was treated as a breach of the duty to bring excisable goods into statutory records, attracting confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The record showed no legal infirmity in the finding that the goods were not properly accounted for, so confiscation was upheld. However, the lapse was treated as procedural rather than clandestine, because the goods were entered in the private register and there was no evidence of attempted illegal removal. Those mitigating circumstances justified reduction of the redemption fine and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-accountal of veneers justified confiscation and penalty, and whether the quantum of redemption fine and penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The goods were treated as excisable and liable to accountal under the self-removal regime. Non-accountal attracted confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the record did not show any legal infirmity in the finding that the goods had not been properly brought into the statutory records. At the same time, the circumstances showed that the lapse arose from procedural difficulty in maintaining accounts for the nature of the goods, that there was no attempt at clandestine clearance, and that the goods had been entered in the private register. These factors were treated as mitigating circumstances for the purpose of relief in fine and penalty.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to Rs. 10,000 each.

---