Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The charge of clandestine removal of bags-in-boxes by the Appellants has not been established by Revenue which has mainly relied upon the difference in figures of sale of the impugned product reflected in PMX Reports. It is not disputed by Revenue that these reports are prepared by M/s. Hyderabad Beverages and not by the Appellants. No evidence has been brought on record to show any excess production of the impugned product by the Appellants by way of procuring necessary raw materials. In a similar situation in the case of Moon Beverages Ltd. wherein the charges of clandestine removal was made on the basis of computerized sheets of sales figures maintained by M/s. Parle Exports Ltd. whom the figures were sent by the assessee, the Tribunal has held that "the charge of clandestine removal cannot be established on the basis of one single factor.... Other corroborative evidence such as evidence of other inputs required for manufacture of aerated water namely sugar, carbon dioxide being purchased and utilized in the manufacture of the final product during the period in dispute is required. There is no such corroborative evidence in the present case. There is also no evidence of higher electricity consumption." In the present appeal before us also there is no corroborative evidence except the PMX Reports. Revenue has also not contradicted the submission of the learned Advocate that the Managing Director of the Appellants was not even questioned about these reports. In the case of Rama Shyama Papers Ltd., supra, wherein the records were seized from the premises of one of the customers of the assessee, the Tribunal did not uphold the charge of clandestine removal as "the Revenue has not been able to adduce any corroborative evidence to show the movement of goods from the premises of the Appellants company to the premises of M/s. Chitra Traders or the Customers when the goods were sent directly to as per the direction of Chitra Traders... The onus of proof that the goods were removed by the Appellants without payment of duty and without entering the same in their records is upon the Revenue which cannot be discharged merely on the strength of the entries made in the records of a third party without linking the removal of goods from the premises of the Appellant Company." In the present matter also the Revenue has not brought any material on record to show that the excess bag-in-boxes said to have been sold by M/s. Hyderabad Beverages were removed from the premises of the Appellants. As show cause notice alleging clandestine removal cannot be issued based on assumption and presumption and as held by the Supreme Court in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. UOI, 1978 (2) ELT (J172), the findings based on assumption and presumption without any tangible evidence will be vitiated by an error of law. We, therefore, set aside the demand on charge of clandestine removal.