Tribunal overturns fine & penalty for excess stock, citing lack of evidence in clandestine removal charge.

The appellate tribunal set aside the order imposing redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for excess stock allegedly meant for clandestine removal. The lack of concrete evidence supporting the charge of clandestine removal led the tribunal to find the demand unsustainable, emphasizing the necessity for substantial evidence in such cases. The appellant's consistent claim regarding their daily production figures and the absence of contradictory evidence further supported the tribunal's decision to allow the appeal and provide consequential relief, if applicable.

---

---

Issues:
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for excess stock found in their factory meant for clandestine removal.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the imposition of redemption fine and penalty based on the excess stock found in their factory, allegedly meant for clandestine removal. During a visit to the factory premises, discrepancies were noted in the stock count, with a significant excess of pieces of bushes compared to the stock register. The authorities alleged that the excess stock was intended for clandestine removal, leading to the confiscation of the goods and the imposition of fines and penalties. The appellant contended that their daily production of bushes ranged from 9000 to 10000 pieces, a claim not disproved by the Revenue with substantial evidence. The absence of concrete evidence to support the charge of clandestine removal rendered the allegation based on assumption and presumption. The appellant maintained that they recorded the daily production accurately, and without verifying the daily production figures, the demand against the appellant was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the goods were held not liable for confiscation, and the question of imposing redemption fine and penalty did not hold ground.

The appellate tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and records, concluded that the lack of substantial evidence supporting the charge of clandestine removal undermined the case against the appellant. The tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the charge and the necessity for evidence to substantiate such allegations. Given the appellant's consistent claim regarding their daily production figures and the absence of contradictory evidence, the tribunal found the demand unsustainable. As a result, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief, if applicable.

---