https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353366 The case involved a manufacturing unit where a shortage of 314 M.T. of M.S. Ingots was found during stock verification by Central Excise Officers. The appellant reversed the credit availed but lacked valid documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted shortages alone do not prove clandestine removal without corroborative evidence. Lack of concrete evidence led to the penalty being deemed unsustainable. The appellate authority confirmed the demand based on the shortage detected but the penalty under Section 11AC was set aside due to insufficient evidence of clandestine removal. The demand confirmation based on prior deposit was deemed inadequate, and the demand was ultimately set aside, allowing the appeal. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jan 2018 07:54:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353366 The case involved a manufacturing unit where a shortage of 314 M.T. of M.S. Ingots was found during stock verification by Central Excise Officers. The appellant reversed the credit availed but lacked valid documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted shortages alone do not prove clandestine removal without corroborative evidence. Lack of concrete evidence led to the penalty being deemed unsustainable. The appellate authority confirmed the demand based on the shortage detected but the penalty under Section 11AC was set aside due to insufficient evidence of clandestine removal. The demand confirmation based on prior deposit was deemed inadequate, and the demand was ultimately set aside, allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353366