Declaration breach under Central Excise Rules not proved where manufacture date was unverified; confiscation and penalty could not stand.

Confiscation and penalty under the Central Excise Rules depended on proof of a breach of the declaration requirement under Rule 173B, but the record did not show that the branded goods were manufactured beyond the period relevant for filing the declaration. In the absence of documentary evidence establishing manufacture more than 30 days before detection, the date of detection was treated as the relevant date for affixation of the brand name, and the alleged violation was not proved. Rule 226 was also held inapplicable on the facts. The confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of goods and penalty were sustainable on the alleged violation of the declaration requirement under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was attracted.

Analysis: The only possible infraction was under Rule 173B, which required a declaration to be filed. The record contained no evidence that the branded goods were manufactured more than 30 days before detection, and the declaration could be filed within 30 days from the date of change. In the absence of documentary proof showing manufacture beyond that period, the date of detection was treated as the relevant date for affixation of the brand name. On that basis, the alleged violation was not established. Rule 226 was also found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no evidence shows that the goods were manufactured beyond the permissible period for filing the declaration, and the applicable rule is not otherwise attracted, violation cannot be presumed and confiscation or penalty cannot stand.

---