Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside due to insufficient evidence for Central Excise duty demand.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside due to insufficient evidence supporting the demand of Central Excise duty for clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots. The judgment emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and highlighted that relying solely on third-party records is insufficient to establish such demands. The penalty imposed on the director was also set aside based on the legal position and factual circumstances of the case.

---

---

Issues:
Clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots, confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty, evidence based on third-party records.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots and the confirmation of the demand of Central Excise duty. The case revolves around a Show Cause Notice issued to the appellant, proposing a demand of duty, interest, and penalties. The revenue's case is primarily based on records recovered from another entity, M/s. Monu Steel. Despite opportunities, M/s. Monu Steel did not appear for cross-examination. The impugned order dropped the total duty amount but confirmed the demand of duty for 80.695 MT of M.S. Ingots. However, the order lacks discussion on the sustainability of this demand in the absence of concrete evidence of clandestine activities. The judgment emphasizes that mere statements of third parties are insufficient to establish a demand, citing a similar case where demands based solely on third-party records were set aside.

The judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in cases of clandestine removal. It references legal precedents where findings of clandestine activities were not upheld solely based on third-party documents. The law is clear that without clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, relying on third-party records alone is insufficient. In this case, the absence of corroborative evidence leads to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of both appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment emphasizes that the penalty imposed on the director is also set aside in light of the legal position and factual circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the judgment allows the appeal and sets aside the impugned order due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the demand of Central Excise duty for clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots. The decision underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence and the insufficiency of relying solely on third-party records to establish such demands.

---