Tribunal overturns confiscation and penalty, citing lack of evidence and failure to prove link to clandestine activities.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation of excess goods due to lack of evidence of intent for clandestine removal and improper stock taking. Additionally, the confiscation of seized Indian currency was overturned as the Revenue failed to prove its link to clandestine activities. The Tribunal also overturned the penalty imposed on the appellant, finding no valid reason to uphold it.

---

---

Issues involved:
Confiscation of excess found goods, Confiscation of seized Indian currency, Imposition of penalty.

Confiscation of excess found goods:
The appellant contested the excess stock of sponge iron found during a verification visit, arguing that the stock measurement method was incorrect and there was no evidence of deliberate non-entry in records for clandestine removal. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where mere excess stock cannot lead to confiscation without evidence of intent for clandestine removal. Lack of proper stock taking was also highlighted as a reason for not upholding confiscation. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation of excess goods.

Confiscation of seized Indian currency:
The cash seized from the residential premises of the General Manager was proposed for confiscation as sale proceeds of clandestinely removed goods. However, the Tribunal found no evidence linking the cash to such activities. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish the currency's origin, which was not done in this case. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the currency was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the cash.

Imposition of penalty:
The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty on the appellant, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, found no valid reason to uphold the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the penalty imposed on the appellant.

---