Intent to evade duty not proved; confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not warranted on the facts.

Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were considered unsustainable where the Revenue failed to prove that non-entry of goods in the RG-I register showed intent to evade duty or clandestine removal. The appellate findings, based on appreciation of evidence, accepted the explanation that the goods had been manufactured shortly before the departmental visit and were still lying in the factory. As no material dislodged that explanation or linked the omission to mala fide conduct, the factual conclusion that intent to evade duty was not established could not be interfered with, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of seized goods, redemption fine, and penalty were sustainable when the Revenue failed to prove that the non-entry of goods in the RG-I register was with intent to evade duty or meant for clandestine removal.

Analysis: The finding recorded by the appellate authorities was based on appreciation of evidence. The explanation that the goods had been manufactured shortly before the departmental visit and were still lying in the factory premises was accepted as plausible. No material was produced to dislodge that explanation or to show that the omission in the RG-I register was connected with clandestine removal. In the absence of such evidence, the factual conclusion that mala fide intent to evade duty was not established could not be disturbed.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine, and the penalty were not warranted, and no substantial question of law arose.

---