Clandestine removal allegation fails where recovered invoices lack corroborative evidence and independent investigation.

Recovered commercial invoices and a minor raw-material shortage were insufficient to establish clandestine removal where the invoices were plausibly linked to post-clearance documentation for returned rejected goods. The tribunal noted that the Revenue did not undertake further investigation to identify buyers or transporters, trace the source of raw material, or obtain corroborating statements from production personnel. A charge of clandestine removal must be supported by independent and corroborative evidence, and not by recovered invoices alone. The allegation was therefore not proved, and the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalty based on recovered commercial invoices and a minor shortage of raw material could be sustained as a case of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The dispute centred on whether the commercial invoices reflected unaccounted clearances or only post-clearance documentation relating to returned rejected goods. The earlier acceptance of part of the appellant's explanation for returned goods lent support to that stand. The record also showed that the Revenue did not carry out further investigation to identify buyers, transporters, the source of raw material, or to record supporting statements from production personnel. A charge of clandestine removal cannot rest merely on recovered invoices unless it is supported by independent and corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved and the demand could not be sustained.

---