https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372086 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was treated as subject to the statutory preconditions in Section 11AC, so it could be sustained only where fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion, or other contravention with intent to evade duty was shown. On the facts, the stock was physically available, reflected in records, and there was no sustainable finding of clandestine removal or intent to evade duty. A mere clerical error in the return was therefore insufficient, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Dec 2018 06:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372086 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was treated as subject to the statutory preconditions in Section 11AC, so it could be sustained only where fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion, or other contravention with intent to evade duty was shown. On the facts, the stock was physically available, reflected in records, and there was no sustainable finding of clandestine removal or intent to evade duty. A mere clerical error in the return was therefore insufficient, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372086