Tribunal nullifies demand confirmation due to lack of evidence and overturns redemption fine, providing relief to appellants.

The tribunal set aside the demand confirmation related to alleged clandestine removal and stock of raw material, reducing and ultimately nullifying the demands due to lack of evidence and reliance on assumptions. The tribunal also overturned the redemption fine on confiscated raw material, emphasizing the absence of provisions for such confiscation. Both appeals were allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants based on the insufficiency of evidence supporting the allegations and demands made against them.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Allegation of clandestine removal and confirmation of demand.
2. Justification of demand based on assumption and presumption.
3. Contradictory order regarding confirmation of demand.
4. Confirmation of demand related to stock of raw material.
5. Confiscation of raw material found in excess.
6. Redemption fine on confiscated raw material.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were accused of clandestine removal, leading to a demand confirmation of Rs. 27,69,987. The original adjudicating authority upheld this demand, which was later challenged on appeal.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) deemed the demand unjustified, citing lack of evidence and reliance on assumptions. The demand was reduced to Rs. 27,69,987, which was then entirely set aside due to lack of substantiation.
3. The Commissioner's decision to set aside the demand but confirm a part of it was deemed self-contradictory by the tribunal, leading to the setting aside of the confirmed part of Rs. 4,92,187.
4. Another demand of Rs. 96,433 was confirmed for raw material allegedly used in the final product without duty payment, based on the Director's statement. However, the tribunal found no evidence of clandestine clearance, leading to the setting aside of this demand as well.
5. The excess raw material was confiscated with a redemption fine of Rs. 40,000. The tribunal noted that there was no provision for confiscation of unrecorded raw material and thus set aside the redemption fine.
6. Overall, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders entirely, allowing both appeals and providing consequential relief to the appellants, highlighting the lack of evidence to support the allegations and demands made against them.

---