https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356636 Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under the Central Excise Rules were unsustainable where the department failed to prove clandestine removal or intent to evade duty. The alleged admission by the director did not establish that excess stock was kept for clandestine clearance, and the record did not address the chartered accountant's stock certificate or the explanation for temporary non-maintenance of registers. Rule 25 penalty applies only when ingredients comparable to Section 11AC are present, including fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or deliberate evasion. In the absence of credible evidence of mens rea, the penal action was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 06:49:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356636 Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under the Central Excise Rules were unsustainable where the department failed to prove clandestine removal or intent to evade duty. The alleged admission by the director did not establish that excess stock was kept for clandestine clearance, and the record did not address the chartered accountant's stock certificate or the explanation for temporary non-maintenance of registers. Rule 25 penalty applies only when ingredients comparable to Section 11AC are present, including fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or deliberate evasion. In the absence of credible evidence of mens rea, the penal action was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356636