https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119885 Demand based on alleged clandestine removal of inputs was rejected because the authority had already found no documentary or other evidence supporting such removal, leaving only the admitted shortage, for which duty had been conceded and paid. Interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not invocable absent allegations of fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression in the show-cause notices. The penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was maintained as reasonable, the appellate reduction being justified on the facts. The department's challenge therefore failed, subject only to the admitted duty liability remaining undisturbed. en-us Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:54:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119885 Demand based on alleged clandestine removal of inputs was rejected because the authority had already found no documentary or other evidence supporting such removal, leaving only the admitted shortage, for which duty had been conceded and paid. Interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held not invocable absent allegations of fraud, collusion, mis-statement or suppression in the show-cause notices. The penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was maintained as reasonable, the appellate reduction being justified on the facts. The department's challenge therefore failed, subject only to the admitted duty liability remaining undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119885