https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124353 Mere shortage of inputs and an uncorroborated later statement were insufficient to establish clandestine removal. As no supporting material confirmed the allegation, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable. Interest recovery also failed because the case showed only shortage, with no fixed date of removal or proved clandestine removal, and the credit had already been reversed on the date of visit. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the relief against both penalty and interest was maintained. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:42:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124353 Mere shortage of inputs and an uncorroborated later statement were insufficient to establish clandestine removal. As no supporting material confirmed the allegation, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held unsustainable. Interest recovery also failed because the case showed only shortage, with no fixed date of removal or proved clandestine removal, and the credit had already been reversed on the date of visit. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the relief against both penalty and interest was maintained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124353