https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378032 Excisable goods found unaccounted in a properly recorded panchnama were treated as liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1)(b), read with Section 11AC, and penalty followed the statutory scheme without independent proof of mens rea on the facts noted. The Court also found no procedural infirmity from the absence of separate weighment or counting sheets, because the authorised signatory was present, accepted the proceedings without protest, and admitted the recorded position. The challenge was treated as factual rather than raising any substantial question of law, so the confiscation and penalty were upheld. en-us Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378032 Excisable goods found unaccounted in a properly recorded panchnama were treated as liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1)(b), read with Section 11AC, and penalty followed the statutory scheme without independent proof of mens rea on the facts noted. The Court also found no procedural infirmity from the absence of separate weighment or counting sheets, because the authorised signatory was present, accepted the proceedings without protest, and admitted the recorded position. The challenge was treated as factual rather than raising any substantial question of law, so the confiscation and penalty were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378032