https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80941 Confiscation of finished excisable goods, along with redemption fine and penalty under Rule 226, was found unjustified where the goods remained under physical control, production records were maintained, and the only defect was use of RG1 instead of the prescribed RG12 with departmental acquiescence. The Tribunal treated the irregularity as a technical and procedural lapse rather than evidence of evasion, especially since clandestine removal was not proved and substantial goods were still in the finishing room. The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore set aside. en-us Wed, 14 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:30:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80941 Confiscation of finished excisable goods, along with redemption fine and penalty under Rule 226, was found unjustified where the goods remained under physical control, production records were maintained, and the only defect was use of RG1 instead of the prescribed RG12 with departmental acquiescence. The Tribunal treated the irregularity as a technical and procedural lapse rather than evidence of evasion, especially since clandestine removal was not proved and substantial goods were still in the finishing room. The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80941