Penalty and confiscation upheld for duty-free removal of goods amid misleading records and unsupported hardship claims.

Penalty and confiscation under Rule 173Q were justified where aerated water was removed without payment of duty over a prolonged period. Financial hardship caused by delayed refund sanction did not excuse the deliberate non-payment, particularly as there was no prior disclosure of any intention to clear goods without duty. Discrepancies in gate passes and personal ledger entries, together with unexplained ledger postings and unsupported claims of departmental awareness or personal capacity of the Deputy Manager, showed misleading conduct. The company benefited from the clearances, and the record supported stern action. Penalty was upheld and no reduction was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty and confiscation under Rule 173Q were justified for removal of aerated water without payment of duty and whether the penalty required reduction on the plea of financial hardship and departmental awareness.

Analysis: The appellant accepted the factual finding of clearances without duty. Financial difficulty caused by delay in refund sanction did not excuse deliberate non-payment of duty, especially where no prior disclosure was made of an intention to clear goods without duty. The record also showed discrepancies in gate passes and personal ledger entries, with no explanation for the use of entries unsupported by balance in the ledger. The plea that the Deputy Manager acted in a personal capacity was rejected because the company itself benefited from the clearances and the plea of departmental knowledge was unsupported. The clearances were made over a prolonged period by adopting means that misled the departmental officers, which justified stern action.

Conclusion: The penalty and confiscation were upheld, and no reduction in penalty was warranted.

---