https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53780 Clandestine removal of HR coils was not proved because the alleged shortage rested on inconsistent panchnamas, denial of cross-examination of panch witnesses, and evidence that transport records and buyer verifications broadly matched duty-paid clearances. The discrepancy was accepted as more consistent with an accounting or computer-programming error than unaccounted removal, so the demand of duty and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were set aside. Only a limited penalty for incorrect maintenance of books was sustained under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, reflecting a narrow accounting lapse rather than suppression or evasion. en-us Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:51:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53780 Clandestine removal of HR coils was not proved because the alleged shortage rested on inconsistent panchnamas, denial of cross-examination of panch witnesses, and evidence that transport records and buyer verifications broadly matched duty-paid clearances. The discrepancy was accepted as more consistent with an accounting or computer-programming error than unaccounted removal, so the demand of duty and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were set aside. Only a limited penalty for incorrect maintenance of books was sustained under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, reflecting a narrow accounting lapse rather than suppression or evasion. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53780