Non-accountal confiscation under excise rules supports reduced redemption fine, with no further moderation after substantial appellate relief.

Goods treated as non-accounted under the applicable confiscation rule were liable to confiscation, and the absence of evidence of evasion did not displace that statutory basis. The appellate authority had already substantially moderated the redemption fine by reducing it to one-fifth, having regard to the relative insignificance of the offence and the value of the goods. In those circumstances, no further reduction in the redemption fine was warranted, and the existing reduced fine was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods were liable to confiscation for non-accountal under Rule 173Q(1)(b) and whether the redemption fine required further reduction.

Analysis: The goods were found liable to confiscation for being treated as non-accountal under Rule 173Q(1)(b), and that provision was applicable on the facts. The earlier finding that there was no evidence of evasion did not displace the statutory basis for confiscation. The Collector (Appeals) had already substantially reduced the redemption fine to one-fifth of the original amount, taking into account the relative insignificance of the offence and the value of the goods.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held liable to confiscation, and no further reduction in the redemption fine was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order reducing the redemption fine was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are liable to confiscation under the applicable confiscation rule for non-accountal, further reduction of redemption fine is not justified once the appellate authority has already substantially moderated the fine in light of the nature of the offence.

---