RG-1 omission alone does not prove clandestine removal where statutory records show duty-paid clearance.

An invoice date discrepancy was treated as a clerical error, and duty-paid clearances were otherwise reflected in invoices and statutory records. A mere failure to make an RG-1 entry, without evidence of concealed production or removal, was held insufficient to establish non-accountal or clandestine removal. In the absence of material showing clearance without payment of duty, the basis for penalty under Rule 173Q was not made out, and the penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged shortage of raw material and the wrong date in the invoice established clandestine removal or non-accountal so as to justify penalty.

Analysis: The invoice discrepancy was treated as a clerical error, and the record showed that duty-paid clearance was reflected through invoices and other statutory records. A mere omission to make an entry in RG-1, without evidence of concealed production or removal, was held insufficient to amount to non-accountal of goods. In the absence of material showing clandestine clearance without payment of duty, the basis for imposing penalty under Rule 173Q was not made out.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved, and the penalty could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to enter goods in RG-1, by itself, does not constitute non-accountal or establish clandestine removal when duty-paid clearance is otherwise reflected in the statutory records and no evidence of concealment is produced.

---