https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295251 The appeals arose from an order setting aside penalties on the assessee and its Director while confirming the duty demand of &8377;19,52,225. The Commissioner (A) upheld the duty demand due to missing stock post-burglary but set aside penalties. The assessee challenged the duty demand, citing Rule 21 for remission, with the Commissioner (A) directing the matter to the Jurisdictional Commissioner for re-examination. The case was remanded for a fresh decision within three months, dismissing the allegation of clandestine removal of goods and considering goods lost in burglary. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 May 2021 08:40:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295251 The appeals arose from an order setting aside penalties on the assessee and its Director while confirming the duty demand of &8377;19,52,225. The Commissioner (A) upheld the duty demand due to missing stock post-burglary but set aside penalties. The assessee challenged the duty demand, citing Rule 21 for remission, with the Commissioner (A) directing the matter to the Jurisdictional Commissioner for re-examination. The case was remanded for a fresh decision within three months, dismissing the allegation of clandestine removal of goods and considering goods lost in burglary. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295251