https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50312 Non-entry of excisable goods in the RG-I register, without evidence of clandestine removal or mens rea, was treated as a minor accounting breach rather than a grave contravention warranting harsher penalty. The Tribunal held that where goods were physically found inside the factory and no preparation for secret removal was shown, the limited penalty for failure to make the required entry applied under Rule 226, not the enhanced penalty under Rule 173Q. The reduced penalty was therefore upheld and the departmental request for enhancement was rejected. en-us Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:50:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50312 Non-entry of excisable goods in the RG-I register, without evidence of clandestine removal or mens rea, was treated as a minor accounting breach rather than a grave contravention warranting harsher penalty. The Tribunal held that where goods were physically found inside the factory and no preparation for secret removal was shown, the limited penalty for failure to make the required entry applied under Rule 226, not the enhanced penalty under Rule 173Q. The reduced penalty was therefore upheld and the departmental request for enhancement was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50312