Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether finished goods found in excess of statutory records were liable to confiscation and whether penalty was sustainable under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.
Analysis: The goods in question were admittedly not entered in the statutory records. The authorities relied upon by the appellants were distinguished on facts because those cases involved private records, same-day production explanations, or non-excisable goods. The binding High Court decisions held that non-accountal of excisable goods justifies invocation of Rule 173Q and that absence of mens rea does not prevent confiscation and penalty in such cases. Following those precedents and the principle of judicial discipline, the impugned order was found to be free from infirmity.
Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld, and the appeals failed.
Final Conclusion: The order below was sustained on the ground that excisable goods not reflected in the statutory records can validly attract confiscation and penalty under the excise rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-accountal of excisable goods in statutory records is sufficient to invoke Rule 173Q and impose confiscation and penalty, and proof of mens rea is not essential for such contraventions.