https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251842 The appeal challenged the confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 2,74,976 with interest and penalty on a shortage of finished goods, along with a redemption fine of Rs. 9,59,625 on excess goods. Despite citing mental stress of the officer and case laws in their favor, the appellants' admission of discrepancies and lack of evidence led to the rejection of the appeal. The judge emphasized the Panchnama evidence, substantial shortages/excesses, lack of plausible explanations, and the acknowledgment of removal of goods, ultimately upholding the impugned order based on findings and relevant case law. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:30:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251842 The appeal challenged the confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 2,74,976 with interest and penalty on a shortage of finished goods, along with a redemption fine of Rs. 9,59,625 on excess goods. Despite citing mental stress of the officer and case laws in their favor, the appellants' admission of discrepancies and lack of evidence led to the rejection of the appeal. The judge emphasized the Panchnama evidence, substantial shortages/excesses, lack of plausible explanations, and the acknowledgment of removal of goods, ultimately upholding the impugned order based on findings and relevant case law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251842