https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53053 Non-entry of goods in RG1, without evidence of clandestine removal, mala fides, or other supporting material, was treated as a technical procedural infraction rather than conduct warranting confiscation. On that basis, confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q were held unsustainable, and the appropriate response was only the limited procedural penalty contemplated by Rule 226. Penalty under Rule 209A also failed because there were no specific allegations or evidence establishing its essential ingredients. en-us Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:30:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53053 Non-entry of goods in RG1, without evidence of clandestine removal, mala fides, or other supporting material, was treated as a technical procedural infraction rather than conduct warranting confiscation. On that basis, confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q were held unsustainable, and the appropriate response was only the limited procedural penalty contemplated by Rule 226. Penalty under Rule 209A also failed because there were no specific allegations or evidence establishing its essential ingredients. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53053