https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195528 The presiding member in the case found that the shortage of finished goods detected during stock taking was not due to clandestine removal but likely an accounting error, as the appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the negligible shortage. Emphasizing the requirement for concrete evidence to establish clandestine removal, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was deemed unjustified. The presiding member upheld the duty and interest demand while setting aside the penalty, highlighting the importance of substantiating allegations and providing explanations for discrepancies in stock verification. en-us Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195528 The presiding member in the case found that the shortage of finished goods detected during stock taking was not due to clandestine removal but likely an accounting error, as the appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the negligible shortage. Emphasizing the requirement for concrete evidence to establish clandestine removal, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC was deemed unjustified. The presiding member upheld the duty and interest demand while setting aside the penalty, highlighting the importance of substantiating allegations and providing explanations for discrepancies in stock verification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195528