https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112019 Finished goods entered in Form IV register were treated as duly accounted for where the goods were found within the factory premises and the record did not show that accountal had to be confined only to RG-1. In the absence of contrary evidence dislodging the entries in the relevant records, the inference of removal with intent to evade duty could not be sustained. On that basis, confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not justified. en-us Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:55:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112019 Finished goods entered in Form IV register were treated as duly accounted for where the goods were found within the factory premises and the record did not show that accountal had to be confined only to RG-1. In the absence of contrary evidence dislodging the entries in the relevant records, the inference of removal with intent to evade duty could not be sustained. On that basis, confiscation and penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112019