https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50006 Non-accountal of finished excisable goods in the RG-I register, without proof of intent to evade duty, was treated as insufficient to sustain confiscation and the heavier penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The goods were found inside the factory and not shown to have been clandestinely removed, so the absence of mens rea defeated the graver charge. The accounting lapse was nevertheless regarded as a procedural default under Rule 226, which permitted only the limited statutory penalty. The adjudication was therefore set aside as to confiscation and Rule 173Q penalty, while the Rule 226 penalty was upheld at the prescribed ceiling. en-us Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 May 2019 14:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50006 Non-accountal of finished excisable goods in the RG-I register, without proof of intent to evade duty, was treated as insufficient to sustain confiscation and the heavier penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The goods were found inside the factory and not shown to have been clandestinely removed, so the absence of mens rea defeated the graver charge. The accounting lapse was nevertheless regarded as a procedural default under Rule 226, which permitted only the limited statutory penalty. The adjudication was therefore set aside as to confiscation and Rule 173Q penalty, while the Rule 226 penalty was upheld at the prescribed ceiling. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50006