Clandestine Removal Allegations Require Substantial Evidence for Duty Demands

The judgment by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved allegations of clandestine removal of goods based on shortages detected during stock verification. The appellant, a manufacturer of aluminium wire rod and conductor, was accused of clandestine removal leading to a duty demand and penalty. However, Mrs. Wadhwa emphasized that shortages alone cannot prove clandestine removal without substantial evidence. Referring to legal precedents, she set aside the orders due to lack of corroborative evidence, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The case underscores the necessity of substantial evidence beyond shortages to establish clandestine removal allegations.

---

---

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of goods based on shortages detected during stock verification.

The judgment delivered by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI pertained to a case where the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aluminium wire rod and conductor, faced allegations of clandestine removal of goods due to shortages detected during a stock verification conducted by revenue officers. The revenue initiated proceedings resulting in an order demanding duty of &8377; 3,68,196 and imposing an equal penalty. However, Mrs. Archana Wadhwa noted that the entire case against the appellant was solely based on the shortages found during the visit, emphasizing that such shortages alone cannot lead to allegations of clandestine removal. She referred to legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and various Tribunal cases, to support this stance. Citing the lack of any other corroborative evidence on record, Mrs. Archana Wadhwa set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment highlights the importance of substantial evidence in cases involving allegations of clandestine removal and underscores the principle that shortages alone are insufficient to establish such claims without additional proof.

---