purchase of 167 MT of scrap for the period 5-7-2006 to 11-7-2006. The appellants contended that since they have not availed the Cenvat credit they have not accounted for the same. Moreover, they have submitted that during the period January - July 2006 they have imported/indigenously procured about 6,473 MT of scrap. The impugned order did not take these submissions in to account. Purchase of any other raw material was not established. Electricity consumption was not established as discussed above. Statements of the drivers indicated that they have transported goods to their sister concerns and that they were given papers in an envelope which they showed to officers of whenever it was checked. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that all clearances were clandestine. Clearances to units other than sister concerns, if any, were not established. There was no investigation or record or findings in the impugned order about financial transactions. Under these conditions, allegation of clandestine removal only on the basis of production, allegedly evidenced by the records said to have been maintained by Chemist showing production and the records said to have been maintained by Cashier showing payments to production contractor cannot be relied upon. As a matter of fact, Revenue did not rely on these records while issuing SCNs to their sister concerns i.e. M/s PTSPL and M/s BCPL. Whereas the sister concerns M/s PTSPL and M/s BCPL were alleged to have received about 166 MT and 11 MT of MS ingots from the appellants respectively. Therefore, private records alleged to evidence production were not relied upon by the department themselves. Even these SCNs though confirmed by lower authorities were set aside by Commissioner Appeals. The department is said to have withdrawn the appeals on litigation policy. Therefore, the order passed by Commissioner (A) has attained finality. Similarly, it was alleged that as per records maintained by the cashier, the production contractor Shri Aftab was paid huge money during the impugned period, the SCN issued to him for recovery of service tax mentioned small and altogether different figures. The SCNwas also dropped by lower authority. No appeal appears to have been filed on the same. As the department itself did not find these records reliable, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that these records are not reliable. We find that the Ld. AR argued on the basis of certain case law that the department need not prove clandestine clearances with mathematical precision. Though, We accept the same in principle, as per the discussion above the allegation was mainly on the production; the authenticity of the records not being proved; statements being retracted during investigation and cross examination; findings on the basis of records not being corroborated by other parameters; transportation not being clearly established and financial trail not being investigated we find that the ratio of case laws submitted by Ld AR is not applicable as facts are distinguishable. We find that in terms of the ratio of the case mentioned above at para 4,10, we find that the recordings in private diaries have not been corroborated by other evidence, rather it was controverted in proceedings against other parties, in view of the discussion above.