Appeal allowed: Confiscation order overturned due to failure to record production.

The Hon'ble Member set aside the order upholding the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty due to the appellant's failure to record production in the RG-1 register. The decision was based on the partner's explanation that the production was not recorded because the dealing person was on leave, with no evidence of intent for clandestine clearance. The appellant's arguments, supported by relevant judgments, prevailed over the Revenue's contentions, leading to the appeal being allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order upholding confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty for failure to record production in RG-1 register.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order upholding the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty due to an alleged offense of not recording production in their RG-1 register during a physical stock check. The case relied heavily on a statement by a partner of the appellant firm explaining that the production was not recorded because the dealing person was on leave. The appellant argued that there was no evidence to suggest the unaccounted goods were intended for clandestine clearance, thus contesting the confiscation and penalties imposed. The appellant cited several judgments supporting their position.

Department's Position:
The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, contended that as per Rule 25(1)(b), unaccounted goods are liable for confiscation, with fines and penalties following. The Revenue relied on specific judgments to support their stance that confiscation and penalties were justified in such cases.

Judgment:
After considering both sides' arguments and examining the records, the Hon'ble Member found that the case was primarily built on the partner's statement and the physical stock check where unaccounted goods were found. The partner's explanation that the production was not recorded due to the dealing person's absence was not rebutted by the department. Since there was no evidence indicating the unaccounted goods were intended for clandestine removal, the confiscation and penalties were deemed unjustified. The judgments cited by the appellant aligned with their case, while those cited by the Revenue did not directly apply to the present circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---