https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246694 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was reduced where the substantive duty liability had already been discharged, there was no independent evidence of clandestine removal beyond stock shortages, and the director's statement was not fully inculpatory. The credit issue relating to the 100% EOU was treated as technical, and the director's role was not firmly established. On these facts, the tribunal held that the penalty called for leniency and reduced it from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:40:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246694 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was reduced where the substantive duty liability had already been discharged, there was no independent evidence of clandestine removal beyond stock shortages, and the director's statement was not fully inculpatory. The credit issue relating to the 100% EOU was treated as technical, and the director's role was not firmly established. On these facts, the tribunal held that the penalty called for leniency and reduced it from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246694