https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2734 Shortage of raw material found during inspection was not, by itself, proof of clandestine removal, as the record contained no evidence of secret clearance. However, the shortage was admitted by the director in a statement under section 14, the assessee had voluntarily debited the amount in RG-23A Part II, and the explanation that the discrepancy arose from improper weighment remained unsubstantiated. On that basis, the duty demand was sustained and penalty under Rule 173Q was upheld, though reduced to a nominal Rs. 15,000 in the circumstances. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2734 Shortage of raw material found during inspection was not, by itself, proof of clandestine removal, as the record contained no evidence of secret clearance. However, the shortage was admitted by the director in a statement under section 14, the assessee had voluntarily debited the amount in RG-23A Part II, and the explanation that the discrepancy arose from improper weighment remained unsubstantiated. On that basis, the duty demand was sustained and penalty under Rule 173Q was upheld, though reduced to a nominal Rs. 15,000 in the circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2734