https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167499 Failure to enter excisable goods in the prescribed stock account constituted non-accounting under the Central Excise record-keeping rules and exposed the goods to confiscation, even where they were found in the working hall and outside the approved store-room. Rule 173Q(1)(b) was treated as a strict liability provision for accounting breaches, so mens rea was not required. By contrast, Rule 173Q(1)(d) applied only where intent to evade duty was affirmatively proved, and that ingredient was not established on the facts. The confiscation and penalty were therefore sustained only to a limited extent, with relief granted for the balance. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2014 16:05:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167499 Failure to enter excisable goods in the prescribed stock account constituted non-accounting under the Central Excise record-keeping rules and exposed the goods to confiscation, even where they were found in the working hall and outside the approved store-room. Rule 173Q(1)(b) was treated as a strict liability provision for accounting breaches, so mens rea was not required. By contrast, Rule 173Q(1)(d) applied only where intent to evade duty was affirmatively proved, and that ingredient was not established on the facts. The confiscation and penalty were therefore sustained only to a limited extent, with relief granted for the balance. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167499