https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101623 Clandestine removal was not established on the evidence, because the record did not support a deliberate scheme to evade duty and the incomplete register entries were explained as an inadvertent lapse. On that footing, denial of deemed credit could not be justified, and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 209A were unsustainable. The operative principle is that an accounting omission, without proof of intentional suppression or repeated unauthorised removals, does not by itself warrant duty-related consequences or penal action. en-us Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:53:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101623 Clandestine removal was not established on the evidence, because the record did not support a deliberate scheme to evade duty and the incomplete register entries were explained as an inadvertent lapse. On that footing, denial of deemed credit could not be justified, and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 209A were unsustainable. The operative principle is that an accounting omission, without proof of intentional suppression or repeated unauthorised removals, does not by itself warrant duty-related consequences or penal action. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101623