https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112276 A mere clerical or technical non-debit in RG 23A Part II, without evidence of clandestine removal, shortage, or actual duty evasion, does not support confirmation of duty demand under excise law. Where the record showed sufficient balance to cover the duty, and contemporaneous documents and interception circumstances did not establish suppression or illegal clearance, the lapse was treated as a technical error rather than a substantive breach. On that footing, confiscation of goods and conveyances, and related penalties, could not be sustained once the underlying duty demand failed. en-us Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:20:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112276 A mere clerical or technical non-debit in RG 23A Part II, without evidence of clandestine removal, shortage, or actual duty evasion, does not support confirmation of duty demand under excise law. Where the record showed sufficient balance to cover the duty, and contemporaneous documents and interception circumstances did not establish suppression or illegal clearance, the lapse was treated as a technical error rather than a substantive breach. On that footing, confiscation of goods and conveyances, and related penalties, could not be sustained once the underlying duty demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112276