https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99360 Non-entered excisable goods were not liable to confiscation or penalty merely because they were omitted from statutory records, absent proof of intent to evade duty; the text also notes that penalty under Rule 226 required mens rea. Goods removed to nearby premises were held liable to confiscation because contradictory explanations supported an inference of suppression and evasion, so penalty was sustained, but redemption fine was not payable because the goods were not available for confiscation. Duty paid on provisionally released goods was not refundable, and the security deposit was required to be adjusted against lawful departmental dues. en-us Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:01:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99360 Non-entered excisable goods were not liable to confiscation or penalty merely because they were omitted from statutory records, absent proof of intent to evade duty; the text also notes that penalty under Rule 226 required mens rea. Goods removed to nearby premises were held liable to confiscation because contradictory explanations supported an inference of suppression and evasion, so penalty was sustained, but redemption fine was not payable because the goods were not available for confiscation. Duty paid on provisionally released goods was not refundable, and the security deposit was required to be adjusted against lawful departmental dues. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99360