ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. The department is in appeal against judgment of CESTAT. At the time of admission of appeal, following question of law was framed : “Whether the Tribunal substantially erred in law in not accepting the case of the revenue about clandestine removal of goods in the guise of waste even when the Manager/Authorized Signatory had admitted the offence in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and even when the statement was not retracted?” 2. Respondent assessee is a manufacturer of crimped texturised yarn. According to the department, the assessee had clandestinely removed certain goods claiming as waste in the manufacturing process close to 6 to 7% whereas in ordinary cases, waste reported is 0.5%. These discrepancies were noticed by the visiting officers of the department on 2.7.1996. Subsequently, investigations were carried out. Statements of authorised signatory of the assessee were recorded on 2.7.1996 and 7.7.1996 in which he admitted excess production of yarn which was not accounted. However, subsequently director of the company in his statement dated 10.2.1999 disagreed the contents of panchnama and the socalled admissions made by the authorised representative. Show cause notice was issued and adjudicated confirming duty and penalty demands. Assessee went in appeal. Commissioner(Appeals) by a detailed order accepted the assessee's explanation to the discrepancies and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods. The department approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dismissed such appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the department. No one appeared for the respondent. A perusal of the documents on record would show that the Tribunal has given detailed reasons for confirming the appellate order of the Commissioner. The Commissioner had recorded that the investigating officer had prepared statements of alleged illicit clearance of yarn from two units of assessee which were prepared on the basis of delivery chalans and other seized records. However, during investigation, the unit had explained the discrepancies. The goods were supplied to various customers. 23 out of these were contacted. They all owned up to receipt of goods through proper delivery chalan and invoices. They also accepted payments for goods through cheques. The assessee brought these evidences on record in reply to the show cause notice. However, during investigation, the unit had explained the discrepancies. The goods were supplied to various customers. 23 out of these were contacted. They all owned up to receipt of goods through proper delivery chalan and invoices. They also accepted payments for goods through cheques. The assessee brought these evidences on record in reply to the show cause notice. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the department was not correct in believing that there was clandestine removal of goods in guise of wastage. On the contrary evidence suggested complete correlation of goods with invoice, receipt of goods and payment received. The Commissioner also recorded that the stand of the assessee that there was excess wastage because of accidental fire, was also duly established. He noted that the assessee had produced the evidence called for i.e. calling for fire brigade, press report, reporting of such fire to the police officers about the same etc. Wastage was also reflected in the assessee's accounts. 4. The Tribunal reexamined the evidence and confirmed these findings. We see no reason to interfere. Primarily two authorities have concurrently held that the assessee's stand of fire breaking out in its units was duly established. This led to higher wastage than average. The customers had admitted having received goods and made payments through cheques. In the result, question is answered against the department. Tax Appeal is dismissed.