Appeals Modify Orders on Duty, Fine, Penalty

The appeals were filed against the order confirming duty, redemption fine, and penalties for alleged clandestine removal of goods. The duty demand was set aside due to lack of tangible evidence, with duty on seized goods confirmed. Redemption fine and penalty were reduced, and confiscation of the truck was overturned. The impugned orders were modified, disposing of the appeals in favor of the appellants.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against confirmation of duty, imposition of redemption fine, and penalties based on alleged clandestine removal of goods.

Summary:

Confirmation of Duty:
The appellants filed two appeals against the impugned order-in-appeal affirming the order-in-original confirming duty and imposing redemption fine and penalties. The Counsel argued that duty could not be legally confirmed due to lack of tangible evidence regarding clandestine removal of goods. The officers assumed clandestine removal based on shortage found during stock verification without actually conducting physical verification. The method used to calculate shortage was deemed inappropriate for raising duty demand on grounds of clandestine removal. The Director's lack of objection did not suffice as evidence, and additional corroborative evidence was necessary, such as statements from buyers or suppliers. As a result, the duty demand of Rs. 1,05,321/- was set aside, while duty of Rs. 16,383/- on seized goods was confirmed since it had already been paid. Redemption fine for the seized goods was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- and penalty to Rs. 5,000/-, with the confiscation of the truck outside the factory gate being overturned.

Disposition:
The impugned orders were modified accordingly, with the appeals of the appellants being disposed of in the above terms.

---