https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153989 The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the duty demand with interest, while reducing the penalty under Rule 25 to a lesser amount under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal emphasized the need for additional evidence to prove clandestine removal, noting that not every shortage amounts to such an offense. The Department failed to provide sufficient proof, leading to the rejection of the charge. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:58:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153989 The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and upheld the duty demand with interest, while reducing the penalty under Rule 25 to a lesser amount under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal emphasized the need for additional evidence to prove clandestine removal, noting that not every shortage amounts to such an offense. The Department failed to provide sufficient proof, leading to the rejection of the charge. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153989