https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112437 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 was unsustainable where the assessee's stock and reprocessing movements were properly reflected in the daily stock account, monthly ER-1 returns and computerised production records. The material did not establish non-accountal of goods or removal with intent to evade duty, and the penalty could not survive once the duty demand had already been set aside. The CESTAT therefore held that the penal action under Rule 25 was not justified and set it aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:41:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112437 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 was unsustainable where the assessee's stock and reprocessing movements were properly reflected in the daily stock account, monthly ER-1 returns and computerised production records. The material did not establish non-accountal of goods or removal with intent to evade duty, and the penalty could not survive once the duty demand had already been set aside. The CESTAT therefore held that the penal action under Rule 25 was not justified and set it aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112437