Tribunal rules in favor of appellant due to discrepancies in shortage calculation. Duty demand set aside.

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the charge of clandestine removal unsubstantiated due to discrepancies in the shortage calculation and lack of investigation at the receiver's end. The duty demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against duty demand for alleged clandestine removal of goods.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order demanding duty for allegedly clearing Sulpo Para Ninyl Sulphone (SPVS) goods clandestinely. The search revealed shortages in raw materials and finished goods, leading to the duty demand. The appellant, doing job work for another unit, claimed the goods were cleared to the other unit with duty paid. They argued no evidence proved clandestine clearance and discrepancies in the investigation. The Revenue contended the admitted shortage and self-paid duty were sufficient. The tribunal examined the show cause notice details, noting discrepancies in the alleged shortage calculation and lack of investigation at the receiver's end. Consequently, the charge of clandestine removal was deemed unsustainable, and the demand was set aside. The appeal was allowed, overturning the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the charge of clandestine removal unsubstantiated due to discrepancies in the shortage calculation and lack of investigation at the receiver's end. The duty demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---