Clandestine removal proved on circumstantial evidence; duty demand and penalties upheld despite absence of extra corroboration.

Clandestine removal of excisable goods was found proved where octroi receipts, witness statements and parallel invoices were treated as a coherent chain of evidence showing unaccounted transport and clearance of ingots. The majority held that the department had discharged the burden on a preponderance of probability, while the assessee failed to produce credible rebuttal material. The absence of additional corroboration, such as transport records or electricity-use inquiry, did not displace the evidence already on record. Duty demand and penalties were upheld. A dissenting member considered the corroboration inadequate and would have allowed the appeals.

---

---

Issues: Whether clandestine removal of excisable goods was proved on the basis of octroi receipts, witness statements, and parallel invoices so as to sustain the duty demand and penalties.

Analysis: The majority found that the octroi receipts, the statement of the driver and the ex-employee, and the parallel invoices formed a coherent chain of evidence showing transport and clearance of ingots without proper accountal. It was held that the department had discharged the burden of proof on a preponderance of probability, and that the appellant had not produced credible rebuttal evidence. The absence of further corroboration such as transport records, buyer verification, raw material scrutiny, or electricity-consumption investigation did not, on the facts accepted by the majority, displace the evidentiary value of the material already on record. The confirmed duty demand and the penalties under the applicable excise provisions were therefore upheld.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine removal was sustained and the duty demand and penalties were upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the impugned order was left undisturbed.

Dissenting Opinion: The Judicial Member would have held that the department had not established clandestine removal with adequate corroboration and would have allowed the appeals.

---