https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216760 The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on evidence of stock shortage and the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory defense. The burden of proof was shifted to the appellant, confirming duty liability and interest. Adherence to principles of natural justice was noted throughout the process, with opportunities given for defense. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the penalty, as the Revenue did not challenge the reduction in penalty by the first appellate authority. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216760 The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, based on evidence of stock shortage and the appellant's failure to provide a satisfactory defense. The burden of proof was shifted to the appellant, confirming duty liability and interest. Adherence to principles of natural justice was noted throughout the process, with opportunities given for defense. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the penalty, as the Revenue did not challenge the reduction in penalty by the first appellate authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216760