https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339718 A substantial shortage of finished goods, jointly recorded in stock verification and not satisfactorily explained, supported confirmation of duty demand against the company on the basis of alleged clandestine clearance. On the same factual foundation, penalty on the company under Section 11AC was also upheld. By contrast, the personal penalty on the director was set aside because no material evidence showed his direct involvement in the contravention; penalty could not rest on inference or assumption alone. The result was mixed: the demand and company penalty were sustained, while the director's penalty was quashed. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339718 A substantial shortage of finished goods, jointly recorded in stock verification and not satisfactorily explained, supported confirmation of duty demand against the company on the basis of alleged clandestine clearance. On the same factual foundation, penalty on the company under Section 11AC was also upheld. By contrast, the personal penalty on the director was set aside because no material evidence showed his direct involvement in the contravention; penalty could not rest on inference or assumption alone. The result was mixed: the demand and company penalty were sustained, while the director's penalty was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339718