https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95870 In alleged clandestine removal, inconsistent transport documents and unexplained discrepancies between invoices and challans can support a prima facie inference of unauthorised clearance; here, the absence of credible rebuttal sustained the duty demand. The equivalent penalty under Section 11AC was considered excessive on the facts and was reduced. Personal penalties under Rule 209A were unsustainable because the record lacked any independent factual basis or discussion of the individual role of the partner-appellants, and those penalties were set aside. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:31:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95870 In alleged clandestine removal, inconsistent transport documents and unexplained discrepancies between invoices and challans can support a prima facie inference of unauthorised clearance; here, the absence of credible rebuttal sustained the duty demand. The equivalent penalty under Section 11AC was considered excessive on the facts and was reduced. Personal penalties under Rule 209A were unsustainable because the record lacked any independent factual basis or discussion of the individual role of the partner-appellants, and those penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95870