Clandestine removal must be proved with corroborated evidence; statements alone cannot sustain excise duty or penalties.

Allegations of clandestine removal of M.S. rounds cannot sustain excise duty demand or penalties unless supported by clear, corroborated evidence. Statements alone, without contemporaneous documents, financial records, buyer details, transport records or other independent material linking alleged clearances to the factory, are insufficient. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by the Revenue beyond doubt and not on assumptions or probabilities. On that basis, the allegation was held unproved and the setting aside of the duty demand and penalties was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of excise duty and the penalties could be sustained on the allegation of clandestine removal of M.S. rounds based mainly on statements, without corroborative documentary or other independent evidence.

Analysis: The record showed search, seizure and statements of several persons, but no contemporaneous documents, financial records, buyer evidence, transport records or other material linking the alleged clearances to the appellant's factory. The allegation of clandestine removal requires clear and corroborated proof, and oral statements by themselves are insufficient. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had already found the adjudication order cryptic and unsupported by cogent evidence, and the Tribunal followed the settled principle that clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by the Revenue beyond doubt, not on assumptions or probabilities alone.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved, and the order setting aside the duty demand and penalties was sustained. The Revenue's appeals were rejected.

---