https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112823 Removal of excisable goods without recording them in the production register and without an actual debit of duty in the PLA constituted a substantive breach of statutory accountal requirements. The debit entry on the invoice could not be treated as proof of duty payment, and Rule 173Q permitted confiscation and penalty even without proof of intention to evade duty. Confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty were therefore upheld. As the duty involved in the seized goods was comparatively small, the original redemption fine and penalty were found excessive and were reduced. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 18:34:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112823 Removal of excisable goods without recording them in the production register and without an actual debit of duty in the PLA constituted a substantive breach of statutory accountal requirements. The debit entry on the invoice could not be treated as proof of duty payment, and Rule 173Q permitted confiscation and penalty even without proof of intention to evade duty. Confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty were therefore upheld. As the duty involved in the seized goods was comparatively small, the original redemption fine and penalty were found excessive and were reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112823