https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48457 Concurrent factual findings that stock shortages were explained, RG-1 non-entry did not establish clandestine removal, and no duty demand could be sustained led to rejection of confiscation and mandatory penalty. In the absence of proved clandestine removal, Section 11AC penalty was not invocable. The High Court treated the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal as having properly appreciated the evidence and found no infirmity in those findings. As the dispute turned entirely on concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:08:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48457 Concurrent factual findings that stock shortages were explained, RG-1 non-entry did not establish clandestine removal, and no duty demand could be sustained led to rejection of confiscation and mandatory penalty. In the absence of proved clandestine removal, Section 11AC penalty was not invocable. The High Court treated the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal as having properly appreciated the evidence and found no infirmity in those findings. As the dispute turned entirely on concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48457