Excise duty payment by bank deposit alone is insufficient; proper ledger debit before removal is required, and separate clearances may be re-adjudicated.

Separate adjudication is not barred where the later proceedings concern different goods, clearances and gate passes, because double jeopardy requires identity of subject matter and factual basis. Under the excise scheme, duty is discharged only when it is duly debited in the prescribed personal ledger account before removal; a mere bank deposit does not by itself constitute payment. Where goods are removed without an effective debit, the demand of duty and the consequential penalty, confiscation and redemption fine are legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent adjudication was barred as double jeopardy because the goods and clearances were already the subject of an earlier order; (ii) whether mere deposit of money in the bank, without debit in the personal ledger account before removal, amounted to payment of duty and justified demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine.

Issue (i): Whether the subsequent adjudication was barred as double jeopardy because the goods and clearances were already the subject of an earlier order.

Analysis: The earlier adjudication related to different gate passes and different clearances, while the present proceedings concerned separate clearances under later gate passes. Since the subject matter, goods and factual basis were not the same, the later notice and adjudication could not be treated as a second decision on identical facts or issues.

Conclusion: The objection of double adjudication failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether mere deposit of money in the bank, without debit in the personal ledger account before removal, amounted to payment of duty and justified demand, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine.

Analysis: The governing scheme required duty to be paid before removal of goods and the assessee to maintain sufficient balance in the personal ledger account. A bank deposit by itself did not discharge the excise duty liability. On the facts found, the goods were removed without effective debit in the personal ledger account, despite the gate passes indicating otherwise, which showed intention to evade duty. The demand of duty and the consequential penalty and confiscation were therefore warranted.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, penalty and redemption fine were upheld and were against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed because the later adjudication was not barred and the removal of goods without proper duty debit justified the fiscal and penal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate adjudication is not barred where the later proceedings concern different goods or clearances, and duty under the excise regime is not discharged by a mere bank deposit unless it is duly debited in the prescribed account before removal of the goods.

---