https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336517 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC was held unsustainable where the alleged shortage of finished goods was not backed by positive evidence of clandestine removal. The factual basis needed to impose penal action on the company and its Managing Director was therefore not established. Although duty liability was not disputed and duty recovery was left open, that did not justify the penalty. The penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336517 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC was held unsustainable where the alleged shortage of finished goods was not backed by positive evidence of clandestine removal. The factual basis needed to impose penal action on the company and its Managing Director was therefore not established. Although duty liability was not disputed and duty recovery was left open, that did not justify the penalty. The penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336517