https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54573 Mere non-entry of goods in the RG-1 register does not, by itself, justify confiscation under the Central Excise Rules; evidence of clandestine removal or intended evasion is required. The Tribunal found that the record showed accounting of the disputed stock and that the RG-1 extracts had not been properly considered, so the assumption of evasion could not stand. As confiscation was unsustainable, the connected penalties on the directors also had no basis. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54573 Mere non-entry of goods in the RG-1 register does not, by itself, justify confiscation under the Central Excise Rules; evidence of clandestine removal or intended evasion is required. The Tribunal found that the record showed accounting of the disputed stock and that the RG-1 extracts had not been properly considered, so the assumption of evasion could not stand. As confiscation was unsustainable, the connected penalties on the directors also had no basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54573