https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288716 The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's claim of duty evasion due to clandestine removal of cement by the assessee, restoring the duty demand to the initial amount of &8377; 7,60,759 confirmed in adjudication. The penalty on the manufacturer was increased to &8377; 4 lakhs in alignment with the duty demand restoration, rejecting the assessee's plea for a penalty reduction. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision on penalty imposition, emphasizing the lack of evidence for claimed market purchases and supporting the original finding of clandestine removal based on evidence. en-us Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 15:37:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288716 The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's claim of duty evasion due to clandestine removal of cement by the assessee, restoring the duty demand to the initial amount of &8377; 7,60,759 confirmed in adjudication. The penalty on the manufacturer was increased to &8377; 4 lakhs in alignment with the duty demand restoration, rejecting the assessee's plea for a penalty reduction. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision on penalty imposition, emphasizing the lack of evidence for claimed market purchases and supporting the original finding of clandestine removal based on evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288716