Clandestine removal requires corroboration beyond private records; unverified notebook entries cannot sustain confiscation or heavy excise demand.

Private records alone are insufficient to establish clandestine removal in excise matters unless supported by independent evidence of actual unaccounted manufacture and clearance, such as raw material consumption or other corroboration. Where the private notebook substantially tallies with the statutory RG 1 register and discrepancies are mainly confined to dates, the evidence does not justify a finding of clandestine removal. An omission of stock entries in the statutory register may still attract a limited penal consequence, but it does not support confiscation or a heavy duty demand. On that basis, the duty demand and confiscatory action were set aside and the penalty was reduced to a nominal amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegation of clandestine removal and non-accountal of bearing production was established on the basis of private records and whether the duty demand, confiscation and substantial penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The private note book and the RG 1 register were found to tally on a variety-wise basis in substantial measure, with discrepancies largely confined to dates of entries. The seized private records, by themselves, were held insufficient to prove clandestine removal in the absence of supporting evidence such as consumption of raw material, actual manufacture, and other corroborative material. The admissions on record showed non-accountal of 5878 pieces in the statutory register, but that omission was treated as a lapse attracting a minor penal consequence rather than a basis for confiscation and heavy penalty. The findings of clandestine removal and the consequential demands and confiscatory measures were therefore not supported by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal failed; the duty demand and confiscation were set aside, and the penalty was reduced to a nominal amount under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal cannot be sustained merely on the basis of private records unless corroborated by independent evidence showing actual unaccounted manufacture and clearance.

---