Clandestine removal demands fail where electricity data and uncorroborated records do not prove actual secret clearances.

Allegations of clandestine removal were found unsustainable where the revenue case rested mainly on electricity consumption data, loose documents, computer printouts and statements without proof of actual clandestine clearances. The Tribunal followed its earlier view in a materially identical matter involving the same appellants, the same investigation and the same evidentiary basis, and held that the material did not establish clandestine removal. On that footing, the demand of duty, interest and penalties was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, interest and penalty based on alleged clandestine removal, supported mainly by electricity consumption data, loose documents, computer printouts and statements, could be sustained.

Analysis: The impugned demand arose out of the same investigation and substantially identical evidence as an earlier batch of proceedings involving the same appellants. The Tribunal had already examined the entire material in the earlier matter and had held that clandestine removal, when based primarily on electricity consumption read with statements and computer printouts, was not proved. As the present order was founded on the same set of facts, same investigation and same evidentiary basis, the earlier view was followed.

Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalties were not sustainable and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of clandestine removal cannot be sustained where the revenue case rests principally on electricity consumption and uncorroborated documents or printouts without proof of actual clandestine clearances.

---