Clandestine removal requires corroborative evidence; private notebook entries alone cannot sustain a duty demand.

Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on private records alone without reliable independent corroboration. The text notes that a seized notebook maintained by a labour contractor was insufficient where the department failed to establish the contractor's identity or availability, did not examine him, and produced no evidence of excess raw material use, labour, power, packing material, buyers, or sale proceeds. Suspicion could not replace proof, and the private entries were not enough to support the duty demand. On that basis, remand was considered unnecessary and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand for alleged clandestine removal could be sustained on the basis of private records maintained by a labour contractor in the absence of corroborative evidence, and whether remand was warranted.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the evidentiary value of the seized private notebook. The record showed that the department did not establish the identity or availability of the labour contractor, did not bring him for examination, and did not produce independent evidence linking the entries to actual clandestine manufacture or removal. The adjudicating authority had found that the case rested on suspicion alone and that proof of clandestine removal required corroboration such as excess raw material consumption, labour, power, packing material, buyers, or sale proceeds. In the absence of such supporting material, the private entries could not be treated as sufficient proof, and remand was held to be of no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The duty demand based on the private notebook was not sustainable, and the request for remand was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on private records alone unless they are supported by reliable, independent, and substantial corroborative evidence; suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof.

---