Clandestine removal demands require corroborated evidence; unverified private registers alone cannot sustain duty or penalties.

Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on the basis of private registers alone. The demand and penalties failed because the seized entries were not corroborated by independent evidence such as proof of unaccounted production, clearance, transport, buyer confirmation, or fictitious billing. The absence of contemporaneous supporting material, including after remand and despite the lapse of time, meant the Department did not establish the charge to the required standard. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalties based on private registers could be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The private registers were not supported by any independent material showing unaccounted production, sale, transport, or fictitious billing. No corroboration was obtained from buyers, transporters, railway authorities, or other contemporaneous records, and the allegation rested substantially on entries in the seized registers. The Court treated clandestine removal as a serious charge requiring reliable and corroborated evidence and found that the Department had failed to establish such evidence, especially after a long lapse of time and when no additional material was available on remand.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalties were not sustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An allegation of clandestine removal cannot be upheld merely on uncorroborated private records; it must be supported by independent, reliable evidence establishing unaccounted manufacture, clearance, or sale.

---