Private ledger evidence alone cannot sustain clandestine removal demand without cogent proof linking the assessee to the alleged clearances.

A private ledger recovered from a third party was held insufficient, by itself, to support duty demand and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of excisable goods. The Tribunal found that the Department had not met its burden to prove the charge with cogent evidence, and the authorities failed to address the appellant's objections that the ledger owner was not linked to the company and that some entries reflected duty-paid clearances. In the absence of specific evidence connecting the appellant to clandestine removals, the demand and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty could be sustained on the basis of a private ledger recovered from a third party, in the absence of specific evidence linking the appellant to clandestine removal of excisable goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not specifically deal with the appellant's objections that the person from whose premises the ledger was recovered was not connected with the appellant company and that certain entries related to clearances on payment of duty. The impugned order had merely relied on the adjudication findings without independently addressing these objections. In proceedings alleging clandestine removal, the burden rests on the Department to establish the charge with cogent evidence. As that burden was not discharged, the private ledger by itself was not sufficient to sustain the demand or penalty.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---