https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123156 Clandestine removal was sustained where private records recovered from the factory showed quantities, rates and values of clearances, and the partner's statement admitted duty-free removals; the retraction was rejected as belated and unexplained. The duty demand was therefore upheld. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was set aside because the alleged offence pre-dated that provision, but penalty under Rule 173Q(1) was sustained in reduced quantum. A separate penalty on the partner was deleted because the firm had already been penalised and there was no material showing independent culpability or conscious knowledge. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:26:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123156 Clandestine removal was sustained where private records recovered from the factory showed quantities, rates and values of clearances, and the partner's statement admitted duty-free removals; the retraction was rejected as belated and unexplained. The duty demand was therefore upheld. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was set aside because the alleged offence pre-dated that provision, but penalty under Rule 173Q(1) was sustained in reduced quantum. A separate penalty on the partner was deleted because the firm had already been penalised and there was no material showing independent culpability or conscious knowledge. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123156