https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89714 Clandestine removal and intent to evade duty were not established on the basis of stock shortage and excess alone, because no supporting evidence showed removal without payment of duty and the discrepancy was plausibly explained as a recording mistake. The duty demand on that basis was therefore not sustained. Incorrect maintenance of statutory records, however, amounted to contravention of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, since accurate separate accounting for different widths of flat bars remained the assessee's responsibility. A reduced penalty was sustained for the record-keeping lapse despite failure to prove clandestine removal. en-us Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:10:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89714 Clandestine removal and intent to evade duty were not established on the basis of stock shortage and excess alone, because no supporting evidence showed removal without payment of duty and the discrepancy was plausibly explained as a recording mistake. The duty demand on that basis was therefore not sustained. Incorrect maintenance of statutory records, however, amounted to contravention of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, since accurate separate accounting for different widths of flat bars remained the assessee's responsibility. A reduced penalty was sustained for the record-keeping lapse despite failure to prove clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89714