Clandestine removal can be proved through seized records and surrounding circumstances, with concurrent factual findings resisting appellate interference.

In clandestine removal disputes, the Department may rely on seized records, diary entries, stock shortages, parallel invoices, and corroborating statements to establish evasion where direct evidence is unavailable. Contemporaneous material and surrounding circumstances can sustain the charge if the assessee fails to offer a plausible explanation, and belated retractions may be treated as an afterthought. Where the adjudicating authority, appellate authority, and tribunal record concurrent factual findings without perversity, appellate interference is not warranted absent a substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had clandestinely removed cotton yarn without accounting it in statutory records and without payment of duty, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the concurrent factual findings.

Analysis: The demand was founded on seized records, diary entries, shortages in raw material and finished goods accounts, parallel invoices, and statements of the factory manager and managing director. The Court held that the retractions were an afterthought and did not displace the contemporaneous material relied upon by the authorities. It further held that in cases of clandestine removal, direct evidence may not always be available, and the Department can establish the charge through seized documents and surrounding circumstances if the assessee offers no plausible explanation. The Adjudicating Authority, the First Appellate Authority, and the Tribunal had each recorded independent and concurrent findings on facts, and no perversity was shown.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine removal was upheld and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits of the factual challenge and was dismissed, leaving the Revenue's demand and related findings undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a clandestine removal case, the Department may prove evasion through seized records, corroborative circumstances, and unshaken concurrent factual findings, and such findings will not be interfered with in appeal absent perversity or a substantial question of law.

---