https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256517 The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the charge of clandestine removal of goods was unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence besides the shortage, which was less than 10%. As there was no substantial evidence presented to prove clandestine removal or liability for duty on the shortage of finished goods, the appellant was not held liable. Penalties were also not imposed on the appellants as duty was not payable, and duty on the discount given by the supplier was deemed unnecessary based on a CBEC Circular. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. en-us Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256517 The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the charge of clandestine removal of goods was unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence besides the shortage, which was less than 10%. As there was no substantial evidence presented to prove clandestine removal or liability for duty on the shortage of finished goods, the appellant was not held liable. Penalties were also not imposed on the appellants as duty was not payable, and duty on the discount given by the supplier was deemed unnecessary based on a CBEC Circular. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256517