https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53138 Confiscation and penalty for excess finished goods and duty-paid raw materials could not be sustained on the facts found because the record did not establish deliberate suppression or intent to remove goods clandestinely. For finished goods, the confiscatory language in Rule 173Q(1)(d) was read as requiring mens rea, and the Revenue's cited decisions did not displace that requirement. For duty-paid raw materials, Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 was treated as pari materia with the earlier confiscation provision, so confiscation or penalty could not follow a mere allegation of non-accountal without culpable intent. The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside. en-us Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:35:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53138 Confiscation and penalty for excess finished goods and duty-paid raw materials could not be sustained on the facts found because the record did not establish deliberate suppression or intent to remove goods clandestinely. For finished goods, the confiscatory language in Rule 173Q(1)(d) was read as requiring mens rea, and the Revenue's cited decisions did not displace that requirement. For duty-paid raw materials, Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 was treated as pari materia with the earlier confiscation provision, so confiscation or penalty could not follow a mere allegation of non-accountal without culpable intent. The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53138