Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal due to lack of evidence on clandestine removal.

The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to insufficient evidence supporting the demand based on the assumption of Mill Scale Scrap/loss falling within 1 to 3%. The Respondent's evidence demonstrated a decrease in losses after modifications, and the absence of contrary evidence indicated no clandestine diversion. The Tribunal emphasized that clandestine removal cannot be established on assumptions alone, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The lack of positive evidence on clandestine removal rendered the Revenue's appeal unsustainable on merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the Mill Scale Scrap/burning losses claimed by the Respondent are correct or should be in the range of 1 to 3%.
2. Whether the demand raised by the Revenue based on the assumption of Mill Scale Scrap/loss being in the range of 1 to 3% is justified.
3. Whether the charge of clandestine removal can be established solely on the presumption of normal Mill Scale Scrap/loss being in the range of 1 to 3%.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the Mill Scale Scrap/burning losses claimed by the Respondent in the conversion of M.S. Ingots to M.S. bars by job workers. The Revenue argued that the losses were higher than the normal range of 1 to 3%. However, the Respondent provided evidence showing a gradual decrease in losses after making modifications based on advice from the Project Management Cell. The first appellate authority also noted that the job work challans clearly reflected the percentage of Mill Scale Scrap/loss generated, which was not always claimed to be more than 10%. The absence of evidence contrary to the Respondent's claim led to the conclusion that there was no clandestine diversion of goods, and differential duty could not be demanded.

Issue 2:
The Revenue relied on the assumption that Mill Scale Scrap/loss should be in the range of 1 to 3% to raise a demand. However, the Respondent argued that such assumptions were not supported by any scientific authority or evidence. The case laws cited by the Respondent emphasized that clandestine removal cannot be established based on assumptions alone. The Tribunal found that while the Revenue is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision, the demand in this case was solely based on presumptions and assumptions, which was not sufficient to uphold a charge of clandestine removal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal highlighted that the case law cited by the Revenue did not support the establishment of clandestine removal solely on the presumption of normal Mill Scale Scrap/loss being in the range of 1 to 3%. Despite the principle that the Revenue does not need to prove its case with mathematical precision, the lack of positive evidence regarding clandestine removal led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal did not delve into the time-barred aspect of the demand as the appeal was found to be unsustainable on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the first appellate authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the demand raised on the presumption of Mill Scale Scrap/loss being in the range of 1 to 3%.

---