Statutory register lapse treated as a technical irregularity, with the milder penalty provision applying instead of the harsher one.

Non-posting of production and clearance entries in the RG 1 register for a short period was treated as a technical irregularity, not as non-accountal of excisable goods. The admitted record lapse was not accompanied by any finding that the goods were missing, unaccounted for, or suppressed with mala fide intent to evade duty. On that basis, the conduct was brought within the milder provision for failure to make timely statutory entries rather than the stricter penal provision for graver defaults, and the penalty was reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-entry of production and clearance in the RG 1 register for a short period warranted penalty under the stricter penal provision, or whether the lapse was only a technical irregularity attracting the milder provision.

Analysis: The non-posting of entries in the statutory register was admitted, but the goods were otherwise available and there was no finding that they were missing or could not be accounted for. The record did not disclose any mala fide intention or deliberate suppression to evade duty. In the absence of evidence of a more serious offence, the lapse was treated as an irregularity in maintaining statutory records rather than as non-accountal of excisable goods attracting the harsher penalty provision. The Tribunal therefore held that the facts fell within the scope of the provision dealing with failure to make timely entries, and not the provision meant for graver defaults.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be liable under the milder provision and not under the stricter penal provision, resulting in reduction of the penalty.

---