https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182438 Confiscation of excess goods not entered in the RG-1 register was held unsustainable because the record did not show clandestine removal or any intention to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that the non-entry in statutory records had already attracted the maximum penalty under Rule 226 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, and there was no material to prove that the goods were kept outside the register for illicit clearance. In the absence of evidence of clandestine intent, the order setting aside confiscation was found free from infirmity, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 May 2016 16:23:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182438 Confiscation of excess goods not entered in the RG-1 register was held unsustainable because the record did not show clandestine removal or any intention to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that the non-entry in statutory records had already attracted the maximum penalty under Rule 226 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, and there was no material to prove that the goods were kept outside the register for illicit clearance. In the absence of evidence of clandestine intent, the order setting aside confiscation was found free from infirmity, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182438