Coal allotment figures in affidavits insufficient for proof of goods removal. Department bears burden of proof.

The Tribunal held that relying solely on figures in affidavits for coal allotment without corroborative evidence of actual goods removal is unjustified. The appellants' contention that the figures were inflated for securing more coal was accepted. The burden of proof lies with the Department, and affidavits alone are insufficient to prove clandestine removal. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of relying on figures given in affidavits for coal allotment to determine clandestine removal of goods.
2. Validity of affidavits as conclusive proof in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Summary:

Issue 1: Justification of relying on figures given in affidavits for coal allotment to determine clandestine removal of goods
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Silicate, were charged with clandestine removal based on discrepancies between figures submitted to the District Industries Centre for coal allotment and those recorded in statutory Central Excise records (RG-1). The Department demanded differential duty based on higher figures provided in affidavits for coal allotment, invoking an extended time limit of 5 years. The appellants contended that the figures included sales of other items like oil, soda ash, and empty drums, and were inflated to secure more coal. The Collector dismissed these contentions, asserting the affidavits' authenticity as admissible evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.

Issue 2: Validity of affidavits as conclusive proof in the absence of corroborative evidence
The appellants argued that affidavits filed for different purposes cannot be the sole basis for concluding clandestine removal without corroborative evidence. They cited various judgments, including M. Koyakutty, Kayam - Kalam v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, and Rakesh Bulb Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, emphasizing the need for uncontrovertible material. The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof lies on the Department to substantiate the manufacture and removal of goods with corroborative evidence. It referenced several cases, including J.A. Naidu v. State of Maharashtra and Premier Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, to highlight that suspicion or affidavits alone are insufficient for such conclusions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Department was not justified in relying solely on figures provided in affidavits to the Department of Industries without corroborative evidence of actual manufacture and removal of goods. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

---