Clandestine removal can be proved through circumstantial evidence and preponderance of probability when primary records are suppressed.

Clandestine removal and duty evasion may be established through a consistent chain of circumstantial and external evidence where primary records are suppressed or destroyed. The Tribunal accepted weighbridge slips, invoices, bank trail, broker statements, buyer statements, and transport records as corroborative material showing a structured scheme involving brokers, bill traders, transporters, and buyers. It held that direct evidence is not indispensable in such cases and that the department may prove the charge on a preponderance of probability. The duty demand and penalties were upheld, and the appeals failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalties for clandestine removal of excisable goods were sustainable on the basis of weighbridge slips, invoices, bank trail, broker statements, and other external evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the investigation had not relied on weighbridge slips alone, but on a chain of corroborative material including seized invoices, statements of brokers, bill traders and buyers, bank transactions, and transport-related records. It held that the appellants had suppressed raw material purchases, production, removals, and sale proceeds through a structured racket involving brokers, bill traders, transporters, and Kerala buyers. The Tribunal accepted that in cases of clandestine removal, direct evidence is often unavailable because the offending party itself destroys or suppresses primary records, and therefore the department may establish the case through related external evidence and a preponderance of probability.

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

Final Conclusion: All appeals failed on merits and were dismissed, with the findings of clandestine evasion and the consequential penalties remaining undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal and duty evasion may be proved by a consistent chain of circumstantial and related external evidence on the standard of preponderance of probability, and direct evidence is not indispensable where the assessee has suppressed or destroyed primary records.

---