Non-accountal in RG-1 without intent to evade duty may attract only limited penalty, not confiscation or higher sanctions.

Confiscation of finished goods, redemption fine and higher penalty for non-accountal in RG-1 were not justified where the duty had already been debited on the same day, sufficient balance remained for clearances, and no clandestine removal or intent to evade duty was proved. The appellate authorities therefore set aside confiscation, sustained only a penalty for the non-entry, and restricted it to the maximum prescribed for that offence. Invocation of Section 11AC was held unwarranted for the detected lapse, and the High Court found no legal infirmity in the concurrent factual findings or any substantial question of law for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty for non-accountal of finished goods in RG-1 Register were justified in the absence of proof of intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The appellate authorities found on facts that the relevant duty had been debited on the same day, that there was sufficient balance to cover the clearances, and that the goods were not shown to be clandestinely removed with intent to evade duty. On that basis, confiscation of the seized goods was set aside. Penalty was considered maintainable only for the non-entry, but was reduced to the maximum prescribed for such non-entry, and invocation of Section 11AC was held unwarranted for the detected offence. The High Court found no legal infirmity in these concurrent factual findings and no substantial question of law arising for interference.

Conclusion: Confiscation and the higher penalties were not justified, and the appellate findings reducing the consequences for non-accountal were upheld.

---