Clandestine removal claims need positive corroborative evidence; mere suspicion cannot defeat SSI exemption or sustain duty demands.

Denial of SSI exemption and a duty demand based on alleged suppression, clubbing of units, and clandestine removal of yarn require positive corroborative evidence. The Court noted that registration records, RT-12 assessments, statements of customers and transporters, invoices, and yarn obligation returns were examined, but the Revenue did not establish that the two units were one concern or that plain reel hanks were actually cleared as cheese yarn. In alleged clandestine manufacture and removal cases, the burden remains on the Revenue, and the charge must be proved on a preponderance of probabilities supported by evidence, not conjecture or suspicion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of SSI exemption and the demand of duty based on alleged suppression, clubbing of units, and clandestine removal of yarn were sustainable.

Analysis: The Court noted that both the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal had examined the registration records, the RT-12 assessments, the customers' and transporters' statements, the invoices, and the yarn obligation returns filed before the Textile Commissioner. It held that the Revenue had not produced positive corroborative evidence to show that the two units were one concern for the relevant period or that the goods described as plain reel hanks were actually cleared as cheese yarn. The Court reiterated that in cases of alleged clandestine manufacture and removal, the burden lies on the Revenue and the standard of proof must rest on preponderance of probabilities supported by evidence, not conjecture or surmise.

Conclusion: The demand, confiscation-related action, and denial of SSI benefit were not proved, and the concurrent factual findings required no interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of alleged clandestine removal, the Revenue must establish the charge by positive and corroborative evidence, and mere suspicion, uncorroborated statements, or assumptions cannot displace concurrent findings in favour of the assessee.

---