https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51804 Confiscation and penalty for alleged clandestine removal were unsustainable where the authority failed to record any finding of clandestine intent. The distinction between Rule 173Q(1)(b) and Rule 173Q(1)(d) was material: non-accountal of finished excisable goods under clause (b) did not require mens rea, but clause (d) applied only where clandestine removal was alleged and proof of intent was available. On the facts stated, the goods were said to be awaiting transfer to the bonded store room for RG-1 accounting, and the requisite proof of mens rea was absent. The order setting aside confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(d) was therefore upheld, while the limited penalty under Rule 226 remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:51:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51804 Confiscation and penalty for alleged clandestine removal were unsustainable where the authority failed to record any finding of clandestine intent. The distinction between Rule 173Q(1)(b) and Rule 173Q(1)(d) was material: non-accountal of finished excisable goods under clause (b) did not require mens rea, but clause (d) applied only where clandestine removal was alleged and proof of intent was available. On the facts stated, the goods were said to be awaiting transfer to the bonded store room for RG-1 accounting, and the requisite proof of mens rea was absent. The order setting aside confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(d) was therefore upheld, while the limited penalty under Rule 226 remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51804