Unaccounted excisable goods can attract confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) even without proof of intent to evade duty.

Unaccounted excisable goods found in the factory were liable to confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 because the excess stock was not entered in the daily stock register and the production or heat register did not substantiate the claim that it had been manufactured from earlier raw material. Proper maintenance of daily records under Rule 10 was mandatory, and failure to account for manufactured or stored goods attracted Rule 25(1)(b). Absence of mens rea or intent to evade duty did not defeat action under that clause, as intent is relevant only to the residuary provision in Rule 25(1)(d).

---

---

Issues: Whether unaccounted excisable goods found in the factory were liable to confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, and whether absence of mens rea or intent to evade duty prevented such action.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the excess stock detected during verification was not entered in the daily stock register, and the production or heat register did not support the claim that the goods had been produced from raw material issued earlier. Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 required maintenance of proper daily records, and the failure to account for excisable goods attracted Rule 25(1)(b). The requirement of intent to evade duty was relevant to the residuary clause under Rule 25(1)(d), but not to Rule 25(1)(b), which applies where manufactured or stored goods are not accounted for.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were justified under Rule 25(1)(b), and the plea that mens rea was necessary was rejected.

---