https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86502 Confiscation under Rule 173Q was inapplicable to excisable goods found unaccounted but still lying within the factory and not yet removed, so the confiscation order and redemption fine were set aside. Non-accountal, however, was proved on the evidence, and the explanation for the lapse did not displace the finding of contravention; the reduced penalty was therefore treated as reasonable and upheld. The decision draws a distinction between the stage of removal, which is relevant to confiscation, and the separate liability arising from established non-accountal of excisable goods. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:15:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86502 Confiscation under Rule 173Q was inapplicable to excisable goods found unaccounted but still lying within the factory and not yet removed, so the confiscation order and redemption fine were set aside. Non-accountal, however, was proved on the evidence, and the explanation for the lapse did not displace the finding of contravention; the reduced penalty was therefore treated as reasonable and upheld. The decision draws a distinction between the stage of removal, which is relevant to confiscation, and the separate liability arising from established non-accountal of excisable goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86502