Clandestine removal demands need independent corroboration; private records and retracted statements alone are insufficient.

A charge of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained on private records and a retracted statement alone unless supported by independent corroborative evidence. Here, the demand was based mainly on the Jabeda Khata and the manager's statement, but the statement was retracted and not effectively tested by cross-examination. There was also no proof of raw material purchase and consumption, excess power use, extra wages, customer-side verification, or other objective circumstances linking the entries to unaccounted production and clearance. On that basis, the duty, interest, and equal penalty were held unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty, interest and equal penalty for alleged clandestine manufacture and removal could be sustained on the basis of private records and statements without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The demand was founded principally on seized private records, namely the register referred to as Jabeda Khata, and the statement of the manager. The record showed that the statement was subsequently retracted and was not effectively tested by cross-examination. The evidence also did not establish the purchase and consumption of raw materials, excess power use, additional wages, customer-side verification, or any other independent circumstance linking the recorded entries to unaccounted manufacture and clearance. In matters of alleged clandestine activity, the legal requirement is proof by complete, tangible, and corroborative evidence, and not by suspicion, assumptions, or presumptions drawn from private papers alone.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest, and equal penalty was held to be unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the allegation of clandestine removal was not proved by reliable corroborative material.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained merely on private documents or retracted statements unless supported by independent corroborative evidence establishing production, clearance, and duty evasion.

---