https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217754 The Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. They found that the duty demand was based on shortages without evidence of clandestine removal. Precedent cases were cited to support the decision, emphasizing that accepting duty liability for shortages did not prove clandestine removal. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument for penalty imposition under Section 11AC, stating that not contesting the demand for shortages did not imply admission of clandestine removal. en-us Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2013 10:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217754 The Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. They found that the duty demand was based on shortages without evidence of clandestine removal. Precedent cases were cited to support the decision, emphasizing that accepting duty liability for shortages did not prove clandestine removal. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument for penalty imposition under Section 11AC, stating that not contesting the demand for shortages did not imply admission of clandestine removal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217754