https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3043 In the absence of proof of mens rea and any allegation of clandestine removal, the stringent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted merely because of excess raw material and shortage of finished goods. The appellate authority therefore reduced the penalty while sustaining a limited penalty for contravention of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in that approach. The Revenue's request for enhancement of penalty was rejected, and the reduced penalty was sustained. en-us Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3043 In the absence of proof of mens rea and any allegation of clandestine removal, the stringent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted merely because of excess raw material and shortage of finished goods. The appellate authority therefore reduced the penalty while sustaining a limited penalty for contravention of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in that approach. The Revenue's request for enhancement of penalty was rejected, and the reduced penalty was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3043