https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155576 Mere shortage of finished goods and admitted duty liability did not by themselves satisfy the ingredients for mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the record contained no evidence of clandestine removal. In the absence of show-cause notice material establishing clandestine removal, the mandatory penalty provision could not be sustained in its original form. However, the admitted irregularity in maintenance of accounts justified a lesser penal consequence, so the penalty was converted to one under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with reduced monetary liability. en-us Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:31:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155576 Mere shortage of finished goods and admitted duty liability did not by themselves satisfy the ingredients for mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where the record contained no evidence of clandestine removal. In the absence of show-cause notice material establishing clandestine removal, the mandatory penalty provision could not be sustained in its original form. However, the admitted irregularity in maintenance of accounts justified a lesser penal consequence, so the penalty was converted to one under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with reduced monetary liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155576