https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111500 Finished goods found in excess and not entered in the RG-I register were examined for confiscation and personal penalties. The appellants stated that the goods were under testing for galvanising defects and were entered in RG-I only after testing and customer inspection. As no clandestine removal or duty evasion was shown, mere non-accountal was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive contravention. The cited precedent was applied to hold that confiscation cannot rest solely on non-entry in records when marketability and intent to remove clandestinely are not established. Confiscation and personal penalties were therefore held unsustainable. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:25:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111500 Finished goods found in excess and not entered in the RG-I register were examined for confiscation and personal penalties. The appellants stated that the goods were under testing for galvanising defects and were entered in RG-I only after testing and customer inspection. As no clandestine removal or duty evasion was shown, mere non-accountal was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive contravention. The cited precedent was applied to hold that confiscation cannot rest solely on non-entry in records when marketability and intent to remove clandestinely are not established. Confiscation and personal penalties were therefore held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111500