https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356537 The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11 AC of the Act was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD. The Tribunal held that penalties cannot be solely based on shortages without evidence of clandestine removal. Emphasizing the need for concrete evidence, the Tribunal ruled that findings of clandestine removal must be supported by tangible proof, not assumptions. The duty and interest were confirmed, as admitted by the appellant, and the appeal was allowed on these terms. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:00:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356537 The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 11 AC of the Act was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD. The Tribunal held that penalties cannot be solely based on shortages without evidence of clandestine removal. Emphasizing the need for concrete evidence, the Tribunal ruled that findings of clandestine removal must be supported by tangible proof, not assumptions. The duty and interest were confirmed, as admitted by the appellant, and the appeal was allowed on these terms. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356537