https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427677 The Tribunal found that the allegations of clandestine removal of goods against the manufacturers were not substantiated by concrete evidence. It was highlighted that mere discrepancies in stock do not prove clandestine removal. Additionally, the penalties imposed under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, were deemed unjustified due to lack of evidence of willful misconduct and failure to specify relevant clauses. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and allowed all appeals, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence and adherence to statutory provisions in penalty imposition. en-us Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427677 The Tribunal found that the allegations of clandestine removal of goods against the manufacturers were not substantiated by concrete evidence. It was highlighted that mere discrepancies in stock do not prove clandestine removal. Additionally, the penalties imposed under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, were deemed unjustified due to lack of evidence of willful misconduct and failure to specify relevant clauses. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and allowed all appeals, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence and adherence to statutory provisions in penalty imposition. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427677