https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74798 Penalty for excise record-keeping lapses should not be imposed where clandestine removal is not proved and the discrepancy is only technical or venial. The article states that imperfect maintenance of Central Excise records and non-accountal of rejected goods in the RG-1 register did not, by themselves, justify personal penalty when the goods were rejected for poor quality, no physical removal from the factory was shown, and the conduct was consistent with a bona fide explanation. Absence of mens rea and the lack of deliberate or contumacious intent were treated as material, leading to the conclusion that penalty was unwarranted and, if paid, refundable. en-us Mon, 22 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:08:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74798 Penalty for excise record-keeping lapses should not be imposed where clandestine removal is not proved and the discrepancy is only technical or venial. The article states that imperfect maintenance of Central Excise records and non-accountal of rejected goods in the RG-1 register did not, by themselves, justify personal penalty when the goods were rejected for poor quality, no physical removal from the factory was shown, and the conduct was consistent with a bona fide explanation. Absence of mens rea and the lack of deliberate or contumacious intent were treated as material, leading to the conclusion that penalty was unwarranted and, if paid, refundable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74798