Mandatory excise accounting breach sustained; duty demand, confiscation and penalty upheld, and Section 11A limitation rejected.

Non-accountal and unsupported disposal of cut tobacco or wet scrap breached the mandatory Chapter X accounting and disposal requirements, including separate custody, verification and prior permission for removal; the Rule 196 contravention was therefore established and duty demand, confiscation and penalty were upheld. The Tribunal also held that demands under Rule 196 are not governed by Section 11A limitation, so the time-bar objection failed. The order was sustained in full and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged non-accountal and disposal of cut tobacco or wet scrap constituted a contravention of the mandatory Chapter X procedure and Rule 196 so as to justify duty demand, confiscation and ancillary penalty. (ii) Whether the demand raised under Rule 196 was barred by limitation under Section 11A.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged non-accountal and disposal of cut tobacco or wet scrap constituted a contravention of the mandatory Chapter X procedure and Rule 196 so as to justify duty demand, confiscation and ancillary penalty.

Analysis: The accounts maintained by the appellants were not found to satisfactorily explain the quantity of tobacco shown as utilised or disposed of. The explanation regarding wet scrap was not accepted, and the accountal in Appendix E was found to be incorrect and unsupported by the factual position noticed during inspection. The mandatory obligation under the Chapter X procedure to account for waste, keep it separately, produce it for verification and obtain permission before disposal was held to have been breached. The Tribunal also found that the contravention was not cured by the plea that the Department was aware of the process or that the quantity was small in relation to total production.

Conclusion: The contravention of Rule 196 was established and the demand, confiscatory consequences and penalty were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised under Rule 196 was barred by limitation under Section 11A.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the view that proceedings for demand under Rule 196 are not governed by the limitation contained in Section 11A. It relied on the settled position that Section 11A does not apply to such demands and rejected the plea of time bar.

Conclusion: The limitation plea failed and the demand was held not to be time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained in full, and the appeal was dismissed after affirming the duty demand and connected penal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods received under a concessional excise procedure are not satisfactorily accounted for and the mandatory accounting and disposal requirements are breached, duty demand and confiscatory action under Rule 196 can be sustained, and such demand is not governed by Section 11A limitation.

---