Clandestine removal needs affirmative evidence; suspicion over a job worker's premises was insufficient to sustain duty demand.

Clandestine removal allegations against the assessee were rejected because the Revenue relied only on doubt about the job worker's rental arrangement and did not produce affirmative evidence of suppressed clearances. The absence of proof identifying the transporters or buyers of the alleged PET bottle removals meant suspicion alone could not establish that PET bottles were cleared as PET preforms without duty payment. On that evidentiary record, the demand of duty and associated penalties were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegation of clandestine removal of PET bottles could be sustained when the Revenue relied only on doubt regarding the job worker's rental arrangement and there was no positive evidence of suppressed clearance.

Analysis: The Revenue's case rested essentially on the inability of the job worker to prove a rental agreement with the premises allegedly used for manufacture. That circumstance, by itself, was insufficient to establish that the appellant had cleared PET bottles in the guise of PET preforms without payment of duty. Allegations of clandestine removal require affirmative evidence, and cannot be upheld merely on suspicion or doubt. The record did not contain evidence identifying the transporters or buyers of the alleged clandestine clearances.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved, and the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.

---