Evidentiary proof of excess stock failed where physical verification records were absent and estimation alone could not sustain clandestine removal.

Alleged excess stock of sponge iron was not proved because the Revenue produced no inventory or physical verification record to support the claimed weighment, and the finding rested only on estimation. Mere acceptance of excess stock at the time of visit was insufficient to establish clandestine removal or deliberate non-entry in the RG register with mala fide intent. On that evidentiary basis, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was not disturbed and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged excess stock of sponge iron was established on the basis of reliable physical verification and, if not, whether the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order deserved interference.

Analysis: The Revenue relied on an on-the-spot statement allegedly admitting excess stock, but no inventory or record of physical verification was produced to substantiate the alleged weighment. The finding of excess stock rested only on estimation, and the record did not show deliberate non-entry in the RG register with mala fide intent to support a case of clandestine removal. Mere acceptance of excess stock at the time of visit was treated as insufficient to conclusively prove the allegation.

Conclusion: The alleged excess stock was not proved by reliable evidence, and no interference with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was warranted. The Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---