Clandestine removal demands corroborative evidence; incomplete notebook entries and an uncorroborated statement cannot sustain duty or penalty.

Allegations of clandestine production and removal must be supported by corroborative evidence; incomplete notebook entries lacking essential particulars such as description or quantity are insufficient. The authorised signatory's statement, without further investigation identifying who maintained the records or authored the entries, did not independently establish the charge. On that evidentiary basis, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the appellate order setting aside the original adjudication was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalty for alleged clandestine production and removal could be sustained on the basis of notebook entries and the statement of the authorised signatory, in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The entries in the recovered notebook did not disclose essential particulars such as the description or quantity of the alleged removals. The finding of the appellate authority that no investigation had been made to identify who maintained the records or who wrote the entries remained unshaken. In a case resting on a serious allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal, the material on record did not provide the necessary corroboration to support the charge.

Conclusion: The demand of duty and the penalty could not be sustained and the departmental appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order setting aside the original adjudication was upheld, with no basis found to restore the duty demand or penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of clandestine production and removal must be supported by corroborative evidence, and incomplete notebook entries without essential particulars are insufficient to sustain duty and penalty.

---