https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125483 Unaccounted excisable goods were treated as liable to confiscation where production and clearance records were not maintained up to date and clearances were made without proper entries. That statutory record lapse justified confiscation and redemption fine. However, the finding of clandestine removal was unsupported by evidence and could not rest on presumption alone. Penalties based on clandestine removal were therefore unsustainable: the firm's penalty under Section 11AC was reduced to a nominal amount for the record-keeping breach, and the partner's penalty under Rule 26 was set aside. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125483 Unaccounted excisable goods were treated as liable to confiscation where production and clearance records were not maintained up to date and clearances were made without proper entries. That statutory record lapse justified confiscation and redemption fine. However, the finding of clandestine removal was unsupported by evidence and could not rest on presumption alone. Penalties based on clandestine removal were therefore unsustainable: the firm's penalty under Section 11AC was reduced to a nominal amount for the record-keeping breach, and the partner's penalty under Rule 26 was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125483