Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in appeal over alleged clandestine removal of goods.

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in an appeal concerning alleged clandestine removal of goods. The appellant contested the shortage in stock, arguing discrepancies were minimal and lacked concrete evidence of actual removal. The tribunal found the weighment method inaccurate due to variations in average weights for different bundle sizes. Norms for proving clandestine removal were not met, and the charge was deemed unproven based on insufficient evidence beyond average weighment. The tribunal set aside the order, granting relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Allegation of clandestine removal of goods, Weighment method and accuracy, Evidence supporting the allegation

In this judgment, the appellant appealed against an order demanding duty on the grounds of alleged clandestine clearance of goods. The investigation revealed a shortage of 180.899 MT in the appellant's stock, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice for duty payment, interest, and penalty. The appellant contested the allegation, arguing that the weighment was done on an average basis and discrepancies were minimal. The appellant claimed the allegation lacked concrete evidence regarding the actual removal of goods. The respondent, however, argued that the weighment method was accurate and supported by physical verification. The respondent cited a previous case to justify the confirmation of the demand. The tribunal examined the case's factual matrix, focusing on the weighment discrepancies for different bundle sizes. The tribunal noted variations in average weights due to specific bundle weights, highlighting the inaccuracy of the weighment method. Additionally, the tribunal referenced a previous case to establish norms for proving clandestine removal, which were not followed in this instance. The tribunal concluded that the charge of clandestine removal was unproven due to insufficient evidence beyond average weighment. The appellant's detailed weighment data further undermined the allegation, showing only a minor discrepancy in stock quantity. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and granting necessary relief.

---