2015 (11) TMI 1166 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Misdeclaration - Held that:- Adjudicating authority had mentioned that the production was recorded by weight but in the sale invoices, the goods were sold by numbers without indicating the weight of the finished goods but nothing was proved that how the stock position was verified regarding sale invoices which only showed numbers without giving their weight. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) extending the benefit of doubt to the assessee had set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The aforesaid findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were affirmed by the Tribunal by observing that there was no other evidence on record to prove the clandestine activities of the assessee as the revenue has not conducted further investigations to establish the identity of the buyers or the suppliers of the raw-materials or the transporters. Further, it was held by the Tribunal that mere shortages detected at the time of visit of the officers cannot ipso facto lead to the allegations and findings of clandestine removal. - No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal - Decided against Revenue.