Clandestine removal requires independent corroboration; private gate register entries alone are insufficient to sustain demand and penalty.

Allegations of clandestine removal of excisable goods cannot be sustained solely on inward and outward entries in a private gate register maintained by security staff. Such private records require independent corroboration in material particulars, and the Revenue must prove removals by affirmative evidence rather than assumptions or presumptions. Because no further investigation was made from buyers, purchasers, or transport evidence, the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside and relief followed for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods could be sustained solely on the basis of entries in a private register maintained by security staff, without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The only material relied upon by Revenue was the inward and outward register maintained at the factory gate by the security staff. Such private entries, by themselves, are insufficient to establish clandestine removal unless supported by corroborative evidence in material particulars. The available details could have been independently verified from buyers, purchasers, or transport-related evidence, but no such further investigation was undertaken. In matters alleging clandestine removal, the charge must be proved by affirmative evidence and not by assumptions or presumptions.

Conclusion: The demand, interest, and penalty could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine removal cannot be upheld solely on the basis of private records or gate entries unless the Revenue adduces independent corroborative evidence establishing the removals beyond doubt.

---