Clandestine removal proved by corroborated records and admissions; proof of the main raw material was enough to sustain duty evasion findings.

Clandestine manufacture and removal may be established through corroborated documentary evidence and admissions, including bank records, delivery records, and statements of persons connected with production and payment. On the facts discussed, the principal raw material was procured in fictitious buyers' names, paid for by the assessee, received and used in the factory, and the resulting acid slurry was cleared without duty, including part-clearance in the guise of soap oil. Once receipt of the main raw material and clandestine clearances were proved, separate proof of every ancillary ingredient was unnecessary. The absence of alleged buyers did not displace the documentary and admission-based evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clandestine receipt of the principal raw material and the unaccounted manufacture and removal of acid slurry in the guise of soap oil stood proved on the evidence on record.

Analysis: The duty demand rested on documentary evidence, bank records, delivery records, and statements of the persons connected with production and payments. The material showed that Linear Alkyl Benzene was procured in the names of fictitious buyers, paid for by the assessee, received by the assessee, and used in manufacture within the factory. The statements of the production in-charge and the power of attorney holder admitted receipt of unaccounted raw material, manufacture of acid slurry therefrom, and clearance without duty, including part-clearance in the guise of soap oil. Once the receipt of the principal raw material and the admitted clandestine clearances were established, it was not necessary for the department to separately prove clandestine receipt of every other raw material such as oleum. The absence of the alleged buyers and the non-production of them by the assessee did not dislodge the documentary and admission-based proof, and the cited precedents on unsupported private records did not assist the assessee on these facts.

Conclusion: The clandestine manufacture and removal was proved, and the demand and penalties were sustainable against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the evidence established deliberate suppression of receipt and use of raw material, unaccounted manufacture, and duty evasion.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal can be proved by a combination of corroborated documentary evidence and admissions, and once the principal raw material and clandestine clearance are established, the department is not required to prove every ancillary ingredient of manufacture independently.

---