Tribunal overturns order, favors appellants due to lack of evidence. Importance of relevant evidence emphasized.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants. The Revenue's case, based on parallel invoices and buyer statements, lacked substantial evidence to prove clandestine removal of goods by the appellants. Crucial questions were not asked to the buyer, and no inquiries were made from truck owners or transport authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the need for relevant evidence, not mere doubts, to establish clandestine removal allegations.

---

---

Issues: Allegations of clandestine removal leading to demand of duty.

In this case, the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, faced proceedings for alleged clandestine removal based on parallel invoices received from a non-informer source. The Revenue initiated proceedings resulting in the demand of duty. The Revenue's case relied on the receipt of parallel invoices and the statement of the buyer admitting to receiving the goods without entry in their records. However, the appellants did not provide any incriminating statements, and crucial questions were not asked to the buyer regarding payment for the goods. Additionally, no inquiries were made from truck owners, drivers, or transport authorities despite details of truck numbers on the invoices. The Tribunal emphasized that allegations of clandestine removal require substantial and relevant evidence, not mere doubts or assumptions. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to conclusively prove clandestine removal, leading to the impugned order being set aside, and the appeal allowed in favor of the appellants.

---