Tribunal Overturns Order: Appeal Allowed Due to Lack of Evidence for Alleged Clandestine Activity.

The Tribunal overturned the impugned order, allowing the appeal due to insufficient evidence for clandestine removal allegations. The Revenue's reliance on private records without corroborative proof of raw material procurement, manufacturing, and sale was deemed inadequate. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence, noting the absence of excess electricity usage and relevant personnel examination.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to confirmation of demand based on clandestine removal.

Details:
The appellants contested the demand confirmation in OIO No. 3/1998, alleging clandestine removal without sufficient evidence. They argued that the Revenue relied on private records without corroborative proof of raw material purchase, manufacturing, and sale of Cold Rolled Steel Strips Sheets. The appellants maintained that the raw materials were legitimate items supplied by SAIL, and there was no evidence of obtaining them elsewhere for clandestine activities.

The learned Counsel emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence, seizure of clandestinely manufactured goods, and reliance on private registers. Referring to precedents, the Counsel argued that demands cannot be confirmed solely based on private records, as seen in various cases where such confirmations were set aside due to similar lack of evidence.

The learned SDR supported the department's stance, citing private records maintained by workmen and supervisors as evidence of manufacturing and clearance of goods.

Upon review, it was observed that the Revenue's case relied solely on private registers and packing slips without concrete evidence of raw material purchase. The appellants contended that procurement of steel from SAIL, the sole supplier, was essential for manufacturing, making clandestine activities improbable without excess electricity and other raw materials. The lack of evidence regarding input receipt, excess electricity usage, and examination of relevant personnel raised doubts about the clandestine removal allegations. The Tribunal noted the necessity of corroborative evidence for confirming demands related to clandestine activities, emphasizing the establishment of each link in the process. Given the absence of substantial evidence beyond private records, the impugned order was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.

(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)

---