Non-entry in R.G. 1 register alone does not justify confiscation or substantial penalty absent intent to evade duty.

Machines found in a factory but not entered in the R.G. 1 register were not liable to confiscation or substantial penalty merely for that omission where there was no evidence of intent to evade duty. The settled position applied was that Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not justify penal action solely on the basis of non-entry in the statutory register; at most, the matter may attract the nominal penalty contemplated under Rule 226. On that footing, the impugned order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether machines found in the factory premises but not entered in the R.G. 1 register were liable to confiscation and substantial penalty in the absence of evidence of intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The machines were found within the factory and were unaccounted in the statutory register, but there was no material showing an attempt to clear them without payment of duty. In such circumstances, the settled view applied was that Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not attract penal action merely on account of non-entry in the register, and the liability, if any, is confined to the nominal penalty contemplated under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Conclusion: The impugned order called for no interference; the appeal failed.

---