Tribunal overturns order due to lack of evidence in clandestine goods removal case.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order in a case involving an alleged clandestine removal of goods. The Department's case relied solely on a diary seized from a supervisor, lacking corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of the charge and the need for substantial evidence, noting discrepancies and insufficient investigation by the Department. Referring to a High Court judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence in such cases, ultimately finding the Department's case unconvincing and lacking proof, leading to the decision to set aside the order.

---

---

Issues: Alleged clandestine removal based on diary and loose papers

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original alleging clandestine removal of goods based on a diary and loose papers found during a search at the appellant's premises. The Department contended that the diary indicated clandestine activities by a supervisor, but the appellant argued that no shortage of goods was found during the search. The Department's case relied solely on the diary seized from the supervisor, who denied the allegations. The appellant pointed out discrepancies in the Department's case and highlighted that the supervisor had other clients for similar services.

The Tribunal noted that apart from the diary, no corroborative evidence was presented by the Department. The names of other clients mentioned in the papers raised doubts about the allegations. Additionally, no suppliers of raw materials or buyers of finished goods were identified or examined. The surrender of a sum of money by the Director was also mentioned, with the appellant claiming it was done under compulsion. The Tribunal emphasized that clandestine removal is a serious charge requiring substantial evidence, which was lacking in this case.

Referring to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, the Tribunal stressed the need for concrete evidence in cases of clandestine removal. The Court highlighted various aspects that need to be investigated to establish such charges, none of which were adequately addressed by the Department in this case. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the lack of proof for the serious charge of clandestine removal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to establish the case of clandestine removal convincingly, especially considering the seriousness of the charge. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

---