Clandestine removal requires proof, not suspicion, where private records remain uncorroborated and no stock discrepancy is found.

Clandestine removal of excisable goods was not proved where the department found no stock discrepancy, seized no consignment in transit without duty documents, and relied mainly on a private notebook and an alleged modus operandi. The private entries were not independently corroborated by transporters, recipients, or other responsible persons, and the authenticity of the records and the capacity of the alleged authors remained unverified. In the absence of reliable supporting evidence, the inference rested on suspicion alone, and suspicion could not replace legal proof. The Tribunal's finding was upheld and the revenue appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the evidence relied upon by the department, the Tribunal was right in holding that clandestine removal of excisable goods and evasion of duty were not proved.

Analysis: The officers found no stock discrepancy at the time of inspection and no consignment was seized while being transported without duty documents. The department relied mainly on entries in a private note book and on an alleged modus operandi, but the entries were not corroborated by independent investigation from transporters, recipients, or other responsible persons. The authenticity of the private records and the capacity of the persons said to have maintained them were also not established with certainty. In such circumstances, the inference of clandestine removal rested only on suspicion, and suspicion by itself cannot substitute legal proof.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding that clandestine removal was not proved was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

---