Appeal Allowed as Allegations of Clandestine Removal Lack Evidence; Tribunal Dismisses Due to Delay and No Substantial Law Issue.

The appeal was filed 223 days late, but the delay was condoned as the respondent raised no objections. Upon reviewing the Tribunal's order in Excise Appeal No. 642 of 2006, it was determined that the Department's allegations of clandestine removal lacked substantial investigation and evidence. The Tribunal found the charge unsubstantiated and noted the significant delay in issuing the show-cause notice, making the demand unsustainable on both merits and limitation grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted consequential relief to the appellant, dismissing the appeal at the admission stage due to the absence of any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay Condonation Application
2. Appeal against Excise Appeal No. 642 of 2006

Delay Condonation Application:
The appeal was filed 223 days beyond the limitation period, along with a delay condonation application. The respondent had no objection to the condonation of delay, leading to the allowance of the delay condonation application. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Appeal against Excise Appeal No. 642 of 2006:
The Tribunal's impugned order was examined, which highlighted discrepancies in the consumption figures of oxygen gas. The Department alleged clandestine removal based on these discrepancies. However, the Tribunal found that no substantial investigation was conducted, no statements were recorded, and no proof of clandestine removal was presented. The Tribunal also noted that the Department failed to establish the charge of clandestine removal without prima facie evidence. Additionally, the issue pertained to 2001-2002, and the show-cause notice was issued after a significant delay, rendering it untenable. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was not sustainable on merits or limitation grounds, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, stating that no substantial question of law was involved as the findings were based on factual considerations.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the delay condonation application and the appeal against Excise Appeal No. 642 of 2006, providing detailed insights into the Tribunal's findings and the ultimate decision rendered.

---