Technical excise record lapse: procedural omissions without evasion did not justify confiscation or penalty.

Non-debiting of entries in RG.23A Part II or PLA and related excise-record omissions were treated as procedural lapses, not deliberate evasion, because the relevant debit numbers were already reflected in computer-generated invoices and the absence of entries was explained by staff handling difficulties. The apprehension that the entries could be destroyed was found unfounded on the facts. The contraventions were therefore characterised as technical and procedural, and confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty were held not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-debiting of entries in RG.23A Pt. II or PLA and non-making of related excise records, in the facts of the case, constituted only technical contraventions so as to justify confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.

Analysis: The records showed that the relevant debit entry numbers were already reflected in the invoices, which were computer-generated. The apprehension that such entries could be destroyed was found to be without foundation. The absence of entries was explained as arising from the regular clerk being on leave and a new person handling the work without familiarity with the procedure. The other record omissions were also treated as similarly explained. On these facts, the contraventions were regarded as procedural and technical rather than deliberate or evasive.

Conclusion: The non-maintenance of the records was held to be a technical lapse, and confiscation of the goods as well as the penalty were not justified.

---