https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101163 Non-accountal of finished excisable goods in the RG-I register attracted penalty under Rule 226, but confiscation was not treated as an automatic consequence of that penalty. The distinction between Rule 173Q and Rule 226 was central: Rule 173Q was understood to link confiscation and penalty together, whereas Rule 226 focused on penalty alone. Because the earlier final order had sustained only penalty for non-accountal and had not ordered confiscation under Rule 226, and because the show cause notice did not specifically propose confiscation under Rule 226, the proposed question of law was held not to arise from the final order. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:46:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101163 Non-accountal of finished excisable goods in the RG-I register attracted penalty under Rule 226, but confiscation was not treated as an automatic consequence of that penalty. The distinction between Rule 173Q and Rule 226 was central: Rule 173Q was understood to link confiscation and penalty together, whereas Rule 226 focused on penalty alone. Because the earlier final order had sustained only penalty for non-accountal and had not ordered confiscation under Rule 226, and because the show cause notice did not specifically propose confiscation under Rule 226, the proposed question of law was held not to arise from the final order. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101163