https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188047 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposed under the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the duty demand based on discrepancies in stock, alleging clandestine removal. However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove clandestine removal conclusively, noting the lack of confirmation by the Authorized Officer. Consequently, the penalties were deemed unjustified, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:36:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188047 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposed under the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the duty demand based on discrepancies in stock, alleging clandestine removal. However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove clandestine removal conclusively, noting the lack of confirmation by the Authorized Officer. Consequently, the penalties were deemed unjustified, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188047