https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100940 Confiscation under Rule 173Q was held unsustainable because, although non-accountal was alleged, no material showed mens rea or intent to evade duty. The explanation that the goods were pending inspection before entry in RG-1 was not substantiated, but that alone did not satisfy the requirement for confiscation under Rule 173Q. By contrast, non-accountal of excisable goods was established on the facts, so confiscation under Rule 226 was sustained. The redemption fine was nevertheless reduced to reflect the circumstances, giving the appellant only partial relief. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:20:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100940 Confiscation under Rule 173Q was held unsustainable because, although non-accountal was alleged, no material showed mens rea or intent to evade duty. The explanation that the goods were pending inspection before entry in RG-1 was not substantiated, but that alone did not satisfy the requirement for confiscation under Rule 173Q. By contrast, non-accountal of excisable goods was established on the facts, so confiscation under Rule 226 was sustained. The redemption fine was nevertheless reduced to reflect the circumstances, giving the appellant only partial relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100940