https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123887 Duty demand on shortage detected during stock verification was sustained where the duty had been voluntarily deposited on the date of detection and no material showed payment under protest, so appropriation of the deposited amount was justified. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted because there was no evidence of clandestine removal or comparable culpable conduct. Confiscation of excess goods was upheld because the goods were not properly entered in statutory records under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, but the original penalty and redemption fine were reduced and substituted by a lesser penalty under Rule 27. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:06:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123887 Duty demand on shortage detected during stock verification was sustained where the duty had been voluntarily deposited on the date of detection and no material showed payment under protest, so appropriation of the deposited amount was justified. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted because there was no evidence of clandestine removal or comparable culpable conduct. Confiscation of excess goods was upheld because the goods were not properly entered in statutory records under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, but the original penalty and redemption fine were reduced and substituted by a lesser penalty under Rule 27. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123887