https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170480 The penalty imposed on the applicant for theft of excisable goods was set aside by the Government. It was found that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules did not apply as the goods were stolen, not removed by the applicant. The Government also noted the absence of evidence for clandestine removal and that Section 11AC, mandating equivalent penalty, was not invoked. The penalty provision under Rule 25 was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the penalty was overturned, and the revision application was disposed of in favor of the applicant. en-us Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2015 17:54:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170480 The penalty imposed on the applicant for theft of excisable goods was set aside by the Government. It was found that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules did not apply as the goods were stolen, not removed by the applicant. The Government also noted the absence of evidence for clandestine removal and that Section 11AC, mandating equivalent penalty, was not invoked. The penalty provision under Rule 25 was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the penalty was overturned, and the revision application was disposed of in favor of the applicant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170480