TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether goods found in the factory but not entered in the RG 1 register could be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the connected penalty was sustainable.
Analysis: The goods were found lying in the factory and were treated by the authorities as fully finished and unaccounted. The Tribunal noted, however, that there was no evidence that the goods had been removed from the factory or that any preparation for removal without payment of duty had been made. Relying on the legal position that confiscation under Rule 173Q is attracted only when goods are removed in contravention of the Rules, the Tribunal held that mere non-entry in the RG 1 register, without removal, was insufficient to sustain confiscation and redemption fine. At the same time, the admitted failure to maintain the statutory record justified a penalty for contravention of the record-keeping requirement.
Conclusion: The confiscation of goods and the redemption fine were set aside, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- for contravention of the statutory record-keeping requirement.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the confiscatory part of the order was annulled, while a reduced penalty was sustained for the statutory lapse.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods cannot be confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 merely because they are unentered in statutory records unless they are shown to have been removed, or to have been prepared for removal, in contravention of the Rules.
TaxTMI 
