https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48363 Confiscation of finished goods, redemption fine and higher penalty for non-accountal in RG-1 were not justified where the duty had already been debited on the same day, sufficient balance remained for clearances, and no clandestine removal or intent to evade duty was proved. The appellate authorities therefore set aside confiscation, sustained only a penalty for the non-entry, and restricted it to the maximum prescribed for that offence. Invocation of Section 11AC was held unwarranted for the detected lapse, and the High Court found no legal infirmity in the concurrent factual findings or any substantial question of law for interference. en-us Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:53:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48363 Confiscation of finished goods, redemption fine and higher penalty for non-accountal in RG-1 were not justified where the duty had already been debited on the same day, sufficient balance remained for clearances, and no clandestine removal or intent to evade duty was proved. The appellate authorities therefore set aside confiscation, sustained only a penalty for the non-entry, and restricted it to the maximum prescribed for that offence. Invocation of Section 11AC was held unwarranted for the detected lapse, and the High Court found no legal infirmity in the concurrent factual findings or any substantial question of law for interference. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48363