Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)

1. The issue involved in the appeal of the Revenue is simple. Nobody is present for the respondent(s). Accordingly, we have heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue and have gone through the impugned order.

2. The Revenue is aggrieved with that portion of the impugned order of the Commissioner vide which he has dropped the charge of clandestine removal against the respondents which was originated against them vide show-cause notice on the basis that actual production figures shown in the balance sheet are higher than the production figures shown in RT-12 returns. The adjudicating authority has observed that there is no evidence corroborating the charge of higher production and clearance. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:

"5.3. As far as question of taking in account of production figures in balance sheet is concerned, I find that there is no corroboratory evidence to suggest that the assessee has manufactured that Qty. as shown in the balance sheet which is higher than that of as shown in RT-12 returns. To hold the assessee accountable for payment of duty on this account further evidences are essential in nature. For example, the finished products require to be co-related with the consumptions of raw materials. It is also common for assessees to show inflated figures of their finished product to qualify themselves for taking higher loan facilities from their bankers. This possibility is also not ruled out. However, in the absence of any corroborative/conclusive evidence on this account, I am inclined to drop this segment of the case against the assessee."

3. We fully agree with the reasonings of the adjudicating authority. It is well settled that charge of clandestine removal and clearance is a serious charge against the manufacturer which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. We do not agree with the Revenues stand taken by them in the memo. of appeal that standard of proof in such cases has to be necessarily on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of absolute proof. Apart from the above we also find that no evidences except the differences in figures of production in RT-12 returns and balance sheet has been produced by the Revenue to show the actual manufacture of goods in question. Respondents have explained the inflated figures in their balance sheet for the purpose of loan etc. and to project the rosy picture of the company. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal and reject the same.