Tribunal overturns duty confirmation due to lack of evidence, emphasizing need for independent corroboration

The Tribunal set aside the duty confirmation against the manufacturer for clandestine removal, based on the lack of evidence besides Balance Sheet figures. The Tribunal emphasized that differences between financial accounts and RG-I figures are insufficient to prove clandestine removal without independent corroboration. As the Revenue failed to provide affirmative evidence, the burden of proving clandestine clearance was not met. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting consequential relief and disposing of Stay Petitions.

---

---

Issues involved: Confirmation of duty on the basis of clandestine removal, acceptance of figures in Balance Sheet as evidence.

Confirmation of duty on the basis of clandestine removal: The Tribunal considered the confirmation of duty against the manufacturer for clandestine removal of final products based on a comparison of figures in the RG-I register and the Balance Sheet. The appellants contended that the Balance Sheet reflected the total turnover of the factory, including fabrication job details, and job work figures. However, the Commissioner upheld the demand, stating that the Balance Sheet is a statutory document giving a true view of the state of affairs, not subject to dispute later. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence besides the Balance Sheet figures to prove clandestine removal.

Acceptance of figures in Balance Sheet as evidence: The Tribunal referred to precedents where higher sale figures in the Balance Sheet, compared to RG-I figures, were not considered evidence of clandestine removal without independent corroboration. The Tribunal emphasized that differences in figures between financial accounts and RG-I alone are insufficient to establish clandestine removal. In the absence of additional evidence, the burden of proving clandestine clearance lies with the Revenue, requiring affirmative evidence, which was found lacking in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants, with consequential relief granted and Stay Petitions disposed of.

---