https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389008 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant-director under Rule 26, overturning the penalties confirmed by the Revenue authorities. The discrepancies in stock were attributed to staff negligence rather than clandestine removal, leading to the deletion of duty on deemed production and the removal of the penalty on the director. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine activity. en-us Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389008 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant-director under Rule 26, overturning the penalties confirmed by the Revenue authorities. The discrepancies in stock were attributed to staff negligence rather than clandestine removal, leading to the deletion of duty on deemed production and the removal of the penalty on the director. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine activity. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389008