Clandestine removal demands need corroborative evidence; weighment slips and statements alone were found insufficient to sustain duty and penalties.

Duty demand for alleged clandestine removal cannot be sustained on weighment slips and recorded statements alone where the slips do not identify the consignor, consignee, or goods and no independent corroboration links them to the assessee. The record relied mainly on truck numbers, but no inquiry with truck owners or drivers established exclusive use, and no separate material showed that final products were cleared without duty. In clandestine removal matters, the burden remains on the Revenue, and allegations must rest on reliable corroborative evidence rather than suspicion or conjecture. On that basis, the demand and penalties were held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a demand of duty and penalties for alleged clandestine removal could be sustained solely on the basis of weighment slips and statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The basis of the demand was the weighment slips recovered from a common weighbridge and from the factory premises, together with statements recorded during investigation. The slips did not mention the name of the consignor or consignee, nor did they describe the goods weighed. The connection with the assessee was inferred mainly from repeated use of certain truck numbers, but no investigation was made with the truck owners or drivers to establish exclusive use by the assessee. The record also did not contain independent material to show that the slips represented final products cleared without duty. In clandestine removal matters, the burden lies on the Revenue and the allegation must be supported by reliable corroboration; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalties were not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---