https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210403 Mere non-entry of finished goods in RG 1 did not justify confiscation or penalty under the Central Excise Rules where the goods were physically found inside the factory and the record did not prove clandestine removal or mala fide intent. The department failed to produce the show-cause notice and could not substantiate any attempt to clear the goods surreptitiously. The omission was treated as a technical lapse, and physical existence of goods was held not to be the same as absence of accounting. In the absence of proof of wrongful intent, the non-accountal was insufficient to sustain penal consequences. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210403 Mere non-entry of finished goods in RG 1 did not justify confiscation or penalty under the Central Excise Rules where the goods were physically found inside the factory and the record did not prove clandestine removal or mala fide intent. The department failed to produce the show-cause notice and could not substantiate any attempt to clear the goods surreptitiously. The omission was treated as a technical lapse, and physical existence of goods was held not to be the same as absence of accounting. In the absence of proof of wrongful intent, the non-accountal was insufficient to sustain penal consequences. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210403