Non-accountal of finished excisable goods justified confiscation where stock discrepancies and record-keeping explanations were found implausible.

Excess finished goods found in the factory, though not entered in RG-1 records, were held liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Rules because non-accountal of excisable goods itself triggered the penal consequence. The Tribunal rejected the explanation based on processing loss and estimated production records, finding the discrepancy too large and the accountancy explanation not credible, especially where raw materials were weighed but finished goods were not. It further noted that the relevant confiscation provisions operate on non-accountal alone and do not require proof of mens rea. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether excess finished stock found in the factory, not entered in the statutory RG-1 records, was liable to confiscation and consequential penalty under the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the discrepancy between the stock recorded in RG-1 and the physically found stock was too substantial to be explained by processing losses or estimation-based production recording. It held that the explanation offered by the appellants was not credible, particularly because raw material was weighed while the finished goods were allegedly not weighed. The Tribunal relied on authorities holding that non-accountal of finished excisable goods attracts confiscation under the relevant excise rules, and noted that the provisions under the earlier rules and Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 operate on the basis of non-accountal itself, without insisting on proof of mens rea.

Conclusion: The finished goods were liable to confiscation for non-accountal in the statutory records, and the appeal failed.

---