Clandestine removal demands fail without corroborative evidence, and third-party records alone are insufficient to sustain clearance allegations.

Clandestine removal cannot be sustained merely on excess electricity consumption or on third-party records alone. The article notes that the electricity-consumption-based demand had already been substantially dropped because such material, by itself, was insufficient to prove clandestine manufacture or clearance, and that finding was upheld. It further states that the remaining demand, resting on third-party documents and related statements, failed for want of independent documentary or direct corroboration and because no meaningful further enquiry was made. The balance demand and consequential penalty were therefore annulled, leaving only partial relief for the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand based on excess electricity consumption and alleged clandestine removal could be sustained on the facts found; (ii) Whether the demand founded only on third-party records, without corroborative evidence, could be upheld.

Issue (i): Whether the demand based on excess electricity consumption and alleged clandestine removal could be sustained on the facts found.

Analysis: The demand relating to excess electricity consumption had already been substantially dropped, relying on the settled position that such material, by itself, was insufficient to establish clandestine removal. The record disclosed no infirmity in that part of the order.

Conclusion: The dropping of the demand to the extent of excess electricity consumption was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand founded only on third-party records, without corroborative evidence, could be upheld.

Analysis: The remaining demand rested on records recovered from a third party and on statements linked to those records. No independent documentary or direct evidence was brought to corroborate those entries, and no further meaningful enquiries were made. The legal position applied was that clandestine removal cannot be sustained merely on third-party documents unless supported by clinching corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The confirmed demand for clandestine manufacture and clearance was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained insofar as it rejected the electricity-consumption-based demand, but the balance demand and consequential penalty were annulled, resulting in only partial success for the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of clandestine removal cannot be sustained solely on third-party records in the absence of independent corroborative evidence establishing clandestine manufacture and clearance.

---