https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1818 Clandestine removal was proved through stock shortage, non-accountal in RG-1, admissions by concerned persons, and corroborative statements from recipients, so the duty demand was upheld. The proviso to section 11AC required deletion of the balance penalty where duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty were paid within thirty days of communication of the order, so the remaining 75% penalty on the firm was set aside. Personal penalty on the partner under rule 209A was also held unsustainable on the facts, so that penalty was deleted. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1818 Clandestine removal was proved through stock shortage, non-accountal in RG-1, admissions by concerned persons, and corroborative statements from recipients, so the duty demand was upheld. The proviso to section 11AC required deletion of the balance penalty where duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty were paid within thirty days of communication of the order, so the remaining 75% penalty on the firm was set aside. Personal penalty on the partner under rule 209A was also held unsustainable on the facts, so that penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1818