https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152422 Clandestine removal was upheld where the assessee admitted production and sale without duty payment, and the later explanation of defective returns and trading of 100 ml shampoo bottles lacked documentary support; statutory records and D3 intimation were absent, so the allegation stood established. The duty demand and penalty under Section 11AC were sustained, but both had to be reworked on a cum-duty basis because excise duty was not shown separately in the sale price. Interest under Section 11AB remained leviable on the re-quantified duty. A separate penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside, and input duty credit was rejected for want of evidence. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 12:15:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152422 Clandestine removal was upheld where the assessee admitted production and sale without duty payment, and the later explanation of defective returns and trading of 100 ml shampoo bottles lacked documentary support; statutory records and D3 intimation were absent, so the allegation stood established. The duty demand and penalty under Section 11AC were sustained, but both had to be reworked on a cum-duty basis because excise duty was not shown separately in the sale price. Interest under Section 11AB remained leviable on the re-quantified duty. A separate penalty under Rule 173Q was set aside, and input duty credit was rejected for want of evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152422