https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41803 Rule 173Q(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a strict revenue-protective provision requiring proper gate passes, timely register entries and debit of duty before removal of excisable goods. The Court held that liability for unauthorised removal and non-compliance with mandatory accounting requirements does not depend on proof of mens rea, and the explanation of curfew and work pressure did not establish bona fides. It also held that the confiscation and penalty could not be attacked on a third-party ownership theory where the goods had throughout been treated as the petitioner's and the alleged owners had not pursued the grievance. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:44:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41803 Rule 173Q(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a strict revenue-protective provision requiring proper gate passes, timely register entries and debit of duty before removal of excisable goods. The Court held that liability for unauthorised removal and non-compliance with mandatory accounting requirements does not depend on proof of mens rea, and the explanation of curfew and work pressure did not establish bona fides. It also held that the confiscation and penalty could not be attacked on a third-party ownership theory where the goods had throughout been treated as the petitioner's and the alleged owners had not pursued the grievance. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41803