Clandestine removal demands require corroborative evidence, not assumptions, for sustaining central excise liability.

A central excise demand alleging clandestine manufacture and removal of M.S. ingots could not be sustained where the Revenue relied only on assumptions, presumptions, and paper calculations. The Tribunal noted the absence of concrete corroboration such as evidence of unaccounted production, illicit clearance, identified buyers, stock discrepancies, or account irregularities. On that basis, the allegation of clandestine removal failed and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue was entitled to challenge the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) when the demand was founded on assumptions and presumptions without concrete evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal.

Analysis: The appeal concerned an allegation that sponge iron procured through a diverted invoice chain was used for undisclosed manufacture and clandestine clearance of M.S. ingots. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not produced tangible evidence of unaccounted manufacture, illicit clearance, buyers of the alleged clandestine goods, stock discrepancies, or account irregularities. The findings below also proceeded on the basis that the case rested on assumptions drawn from a seizure and on paper calculations, which was insufficient to sustain duty demand. In the absence of corroborative material, the allegation of clandestine removal could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was rejected and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand of central excise duty based on alleged clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on assumptions and presumptions alone and must rest on concrete, corroborative evidence.

---