Tribunal sets aside order in appellant's favor due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order confirming a demand for clandestine removal of goods. The appellant's arguments regarding the lack of incriminating evidence, failure to establish procurement of necessary raw materials, and procedural irregularities were considered. The Tribunal found that without evidence of procuring all raw materials and the lack of cross-examination of witnesses, the charge of clandestine manufacture was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues:
- Demand confirmation along with interest and penalty for clandestine removal of goods.
- Allegation of receiving formaldehyde without payment of duty and clandestinely clearing final products.
- Failure to establish procurement of other raw materials.
- Lack of cross-examination of witnesses and procedural irregularities.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against an order confirming a demand of Rs. 23,50,429/- with interest and penalty for clandestine removal of goods. The case involved the appellant's alleged receipt of formaldehyde without duty payment and clandestine clearance of final products. The appellant argued that no incriminating evidence was found during the investigation and no inculpatory statements were recorded. They contended that the Department failed to establish the procurement of other raw materials required for manufacturing the final product, such as timber, core veneer, face veneer, phenol, and melamine. The appellant also sought cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon, citing procedural irregularities under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The Tribunal noted that the demand was based on the assumption of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods. The appellant's challenge focused on two main grounds. Firstly, they questioned how they could manufacture the final product in the absence of other raw materials besides formaldehyde. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to establish the source of other inputs and did not conduct stock-taking to verify the allegations. Relying on the decision in the case of Samrat Plywood Ltd., the Tribunal held that without evidence of procurement of all raw materials, the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal was not sustainable.

3. Secondly, the appellant raised concerns about the lack of cross-examination granted. The Tribunal found that the case against the appellant was primarily based on third-party statements and documents like weighment slips. However, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to establish the authenticity of the weighment slip where the appellant's name was handwritten. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that no cross-examination of witnesses was allowed, following the precedent set in the case of Kuber Tobacco India Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to prove the charge of clandestine manufacture by the appellant, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to the Revenue's failure to substantiate the allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, granted to the appellant.

---