TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The goods were removed without invoices and without accounting for in any of statutory C. Ex. records as admitted in a statement of assessee are not sufficient to say that goods were clandestinely removed. Whether it is absolutely essential to catch actual clandestine removal outside factory premises, in order to prove that goods were clandestinely removed or Department's case can be built on relevant corroborative evidences. (C) Whether non-statutory records seized during preventive checks have any evidential value or not?" 2. The Tribunal has considered the issue raised in these questions as under :- "2.1 (a) After hearing both sides and considering the material, it is found the alleged unaccounted quan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; The appellants plea that the oil in question was being shifted from stores to the production area in buckets and loss pleaded on such transport were not even considered by the adjudicator. (ii) The plea of Work in progress, the PTY lying in the factory and stocks of oil and POY in balance on 31-3-1996 were not considered; the same would reveal a pre-deposit set mind. We cannot uphold the confirmation of demands, on unaccounted production in the manner as has been arrived. (c) The records maintained by the assessee, both statutory and of their own management control system, as prescribed, were maintained. They were recovered by the officers on their visit to the assessees factory in September 1996. The notice ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pse dixit and cannot be sustained, in absence of any corroboration of tainted removals. Since, the burden of clandestine removal is not discharged, the reliance on Kanunjo & Co. - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 and Siemen Ltd. - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 305 by the adjudicator cannot be upheld. We would find that Bombay High Court Division Bench's decision in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.) holding unaccounted production to be liable to confiscation, as in that case there was material on record of clandestine removal and similarly the Andhra Pradesh Division Bench in case of Southern Steels Ltd., Hyderabad v. UOI - 1979 (4) E.L.T. J402 not upholding the confiscation of unaccounted production, as there was no....