Tribunal overturns duty order due to lack of evidence; emphasizes need for substantial proof.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in an appeal against an order demanding duty, interest, and penalty for alleged clandestine clearance of goods. The appellant's consistent denial of wrongdoing, coupled with the lack of concrete evidence beyond records seized from a company's computer, led to the decision to set aside the order. The Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support allegations of clandestine activities, ultimately allowing the appeal due to the lack of corroboration and insufficient proof of clandestine removal.

---

---

Issues:
- Duty demanded on charge of clandestine clearance of goods without proper evidence.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order demanding duty, interest, and penalty for alleged clandestine clearance of goods. The investigation revealed that the appellant was a supplier to a company without accounting for the transactions. The appellant denied any clandestine activities and claimed to have issued invoices for some transactions. The Revenue relied on records seized from the company to support the charge. The appellant argued that without corroborative evidence, the demand was unjustified.

The appellant contended that they had not supplied goods without duty-paying invoices, questioning the validity of the demand based solely on records from the company's computer. The Revenue argued that the absence of invoices indicated clandestine supply. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of concrete evidence supporting the charge. No corroboration or additional evidence was presented to prove clandestine removal. The appellant's consistent denial of such activities, coupled with the absence of incriminating findings during the investigation, led the Tribunal to rule in favor of the appellant.

In the absence of substantial evidence and with no proof of clandestine removal beyond the records from the seized computer, the Tribunal found the charge unsustainable. The lack of corroboration, absence of adverse findings during the investigation, and the appellant's denial of wrongdoing contributed to the decision to set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity for concrete evidence to support allegations of clandestine activities.

---