https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361413 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding duty demand, confiscation of excess stock, and penalty imposition under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 26 of CER, 2002. The judgment emphasized deliberate violations and lack of proper explanation for stock discrepancies, holding the director responsible for the unit's non-compliance with central excise laws. en-us Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:26:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361413 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding duty demand, confiscation of excess stock, and penalty imposition under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 26 of CER, 2002. The judgment emphasized deliberate violations and lack of proper explanation for stock discrepancies, holding the director responsible for the unit's non-compliance with central excise laws. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361413