https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88475 Non-production of a newly opened RG 1 register did not justify confiscation, duty demand or penalty where the register had been authenticated and maintained from 1-4-1992, and the officers visited the factory on 4-4-1992. The omission to produce it at that moment was explained by the absence of the clerk who maintained the register, and the record showed no basis to treat the goods as unaccounted. The assessee was therefore given the benefit of doubt, and the appellate order was left undisturbed; the confiscation, duty demand and penalty were not sustained. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:02:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88475 Non-production of a newly opened RG 1 register did not justify confiscation, duty demand or penalty where the register had been authenticated and maintained from 1-4-1992, and the officers visited the factory on 4-4-1992. The omission to produce it at that moment was explained by the absence of the clerk who maintained the register, and the record showed no basis to treat the goods as unaccounted. The assessee was therefore given the benefit of doubt, and the appellate order was left undisturbed; the confiscation, duty demand and penalty were not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88475