https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119943 Non-accountal of goods in the RG-1 register did not by itself justify confiscation where the goods were reflected in other records, and the lenient view declining confiscation was sustained. For penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, mens rea was not an essential ingredient for confiscation or penalty under clauses (a), (b) and (c). The lower appellate reduction of penalty on the mistaken premise that mens rea was required was therefore corrected, and the penalty was enhanced on the facts of the case. The decision on confiscation remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:25:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119943 Non-accountal of goods in the RG-1 register did not by itself justify confiscation where the goods were reflected in other records, and the lenient view declining confiscation was sustained. For penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, mens rea was not an essential ingredient for confiscation or penalty under clauses (a), (b) and (c). The lower appellate reduction of penalty on the mistaken premise that mens rea was required was therefore corrected, and the penalty was enhanced on the facts of the case. The decision on confiscation remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119943