Clandestine removal can be established by cumulative circumstantial evidence, and photocopies alone will not defeat a corroborated case.

Clandestine removal may be proved through a chain of corroborative circumstantial and documentary evidence on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, unaccounted stock, higher post-search production, blank and parallel invoices, octroi and municipal records, and expert opinion linking signatures to the directors collectively supported the allegation. The absence of original invoices did not defeat the case because the material was not confined to photocopies alone, and the respondents did not rebut the evidence with cogent proof. The finding of clandestine clearance, with consequent duty demand and penalties, was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) exonerating the manufacturer and connected noticees could stand despite the evidence of clandestine removal, parallel invoices, unaccounted stock, octroi records, expert opinion, and recorded statements.

Analysis: The investigation was supported by multiple independent circumstances, including unaccounted yarn found in the factory, higher production reflected after search, blank and parallel invoices recovered from the invoice book, octroi and municipal records showing movement of goods, and the document examiner's opinion connecting the signatures on the photocopies with the directors. The evidence was not confined to photocopies alone. The Tribunal held that clandestine clearance can be established on a preponderance of probabilities and by cumulative circumstantial evidence. The objection based on absence of original invoices did not defeat the case because the record contained several corroborative materials, and the respondents failed to rebut them with cogent evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal and consequent duty demand and penalties was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal may be proved by a chain of corroborative circumstantial and documentary evidence on a preponderance of probabilities, and an objection to photocopies will not defeat the case where the material is not confined to such copies alone.

---