Penalty under Central Excise Act overturned on appeal due to lack of evidence and mala fide intent

The penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was set aside in the appeal. The appellants argued that the stock shortages were minimal and not indicative of clandestine removal, as eye estimation stock taking was used without physical verification. The Revenue failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations, leading to the penalty being deemed unjustified due to the absence of mala fide intent for clandestine removal. As a result, the penalties imposed on the appellants were overturned, and the appeals were resolved in their favor.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants were visited, and shortages of inputs/finished goods were found without a satisfactory explanation. The appellants reversed the Cenvat Credit for the shortage and paid interest immediately. A show cause notice was issued, leading to duty demand confirmation, interest appropriation, and penalty imposition equivalent to duty. The appellants contested the penalty, arguing that stock taking was based on eye estimation without physical verification, and the shortages were minimal (0.56% and 0.46%). They claimed no evidence supported allegations of clandestine removal. The absence of mala fide intent meant Section 11AC penalty was unjustified.

During the case, the appellants claimed stock shortages were due to eye estimation stock taking, which the Revenue failed to disprove. The Revenue couldn't provide evidence of clandestine removal without duty payment. The case law cited by the Revenue was deemed inapplicable due to significant stock shortages in that case. As the Revenue couldn't establish mala fide intent for clandestine removal, the Section 11AC penalty was deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned orders imposing penalties on the appellants were set aside, and the appeals were disposed of.

---