Clandestine removal demands need particulars and corroboration; an unverified statement alone could not sustain duty or penalty.

A duty demand based on alleged clandestine removal could not be sustained where the record lacked particulars of quantity, value, period, manufacture or removal, and the employee's statement was uncorroborated. A bare admission, without supporting material establishing the alleged clearances, was held insufficient, especially because the period of removal itself was not determined. On these facts, the duty demand and consequential penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty could be sustained in the absence of particulars showing the quantity, value and period of alleged clandestine removal, and without corroboration of the statement relied upon.

Analysis: The demand was founded on a statement of an employee, but the record contained no details as to quantity, value, period, manufacture or removal of the alleged goods. A bare admission was held insufficient to establish clandestine clearances without corroborative material, particularly when the period of alleged removal had not been determined. On these facts, the demand and consequential penalty could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---