https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52816 Failure to record manufactured goods in the RG-1 register was treated as a clear violation of Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where no corroborative material showed maintenance of internal records or contemporaneous intimation to the department under Rule 173G(5). The omission could be regarded as only a minor lapse if particulars were merely not transferred from private records to the statutory register, but that exception did not apply on the stated facts. Once the RG-1 violation was established, no separate proof of clandestine removal or intention to evade duty was required. Confiscation and penalty were therefore justified, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:48:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52816 Failure to record manufactured goods in the RG-1 register was treated as a clear violation of Rule 173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 where no corroborative material showed maintenance of internal records or contemporaneous intimation to the department under Rule 173G(5). The omission could be regarded as only a minor lapse if particulars were merely not transferred from private records to the statutory register, but that exception did not apply on the stated facts. Once the RG-1 violation was established, no separate proof of clandestine removal or intention to evade duty was required. Confiscation and penalty were therefore justified, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52816