RG-1 register non-entry can justify confiscation and penalty absent corroboration of internal records or departmental intimation.

Failure to record manufactured goods in the RG-1 register was treated as a clear violation of Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where no corroborative material showed maintenance of internal records or contemporaneous intimation to the department under Rule 173G(5). The omission could be regarded as only a minor lapse if particulars were merely not transferred from private records to the statutory register, but that exception did not apply on the stated facts. Once the RG-1 violation was established, no separate proof of clandestine removal or intention to evade duty was required. Confiscation and penalty were therefore justified, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation and penalty were justified for failure to account for manufactured goods in the RG-1 register, and whether absence of direct proof of clandestine removal or intention to evade duty barred action under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Failure to make an entry in the RG-1 register could be treated as a minor lapse only where there was corroborative material showing maintenance of internal records and contemporaneous intimation to the department under Rule 173G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the omission was merely in transferring particulars from private records to the statutory register. In the absence of such evidence, non-entry in RG-1 constituted a clear violation of Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Once that violation was established, no further proof of clandestine removal or intention to evade duty was required.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were justified, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.

---