https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355492 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing stainless steel products, faced confiscation and penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to discrepancies in recorded versus physical stock. The appellant's argument that the stock differences were due to timing issues during verification was accepted by the Member (Judicial). Lack of evidence for clandestine removal led to the conclusion that Rule 25 did not apply, resulting in the appeal's success. The fine and penalty imposed were set aside in the judgment dated 12.1.2018. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2019 14:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355492 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing stainless steel products, faced confiscation and penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to discrepancies in recorded versus physical stock. The appellant's argument that the stock differences were due to timing issues during verification was accepted by the Member (Judicial). Lack of evidence for clandestine removal led to the conclusion that Rule 25 did not apply, resulting in the appeal's success. The fine and penalty imposed were set aside in the judgment dated 12.1.2018. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355492