https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177857 The penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was set aside in the appeal. The appellants argued that the stock shortages were minimal and not indicative of clandestine removal, as eye estimation stock taking was used without physical verification. The Revenue failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations, leading to the penalty being deemed unjustified due to the absence of mala fide intent for clandestine removal. As a result, the penalties imposed on the appellants were overturned, and the appeals were resolved in their favor. en-us Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:07:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177857 The penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was set aside in the appeal. The appellants argued that the stock shortages were minimal and not indicative of clandestine removal, as eye estimation stock taking was used without physical verification. The Revenue failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations, leading to the penalty being deemed unjustified due to the absence of mala fide intent for clandestine removal. As a result, the penalties imposed on the appellants were overturned, and the appeals were resolved in their favor. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177857