Clandestine removal requires reliable corroboration; untested statements and unverified invoices were insufficient to prove the disputed consignments.

In central excise proceedings, clandestine removal must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities, but reliance on an incriminating statement becomes unsafe when cross-examination is denied, the witness does not appear despite notices, and there is no independent corroboration from buyers, transporters, factory records, or reliable recovery of invoices. On the facts, only one instance of removal under invoice No. 186 was confirmed, while the remaining 23 disputed consignments lacked dependable support or proof of actual removal or delivery. The alleged clandestine removal for those 23 consignments was therefore not established, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether clandestine removal of goods in respect of the 23 disputed consignments was proved on the basis of the duplicate invoices, the statement of the former accountant, the admissions as to signatures, and the other surrounding materials.

Analysis: The burden in central excise proceedings is to be discharged on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, and not by mathematical certainty. However, where the statement of an allegedly incriminating witness is denied cross-examination, the witness does not appear despite notices, and there is no independent corroboration from buyers, transporters, factory records, or recovery of the alleged invoices from reliable sources, reliance on that statement becomes unsafe. The material on record showed only one confirmed instance of removal under invoice No. 186, while the remaining 23 invoices were not traced to any dependable source and were not supported by corroborative evidence of actual removal or delivery.

Conclusion: The alleged clandestine removal in respect of the 23 consignments was not established, and the Revenue's challenge to the appellate order failed.

---