Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether duty demand based solely on a private note book and the statement of a part-time employee could sustain a finding of clandestine removal; and whether the impugned demand and denial of exemption could stand in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Analysis: The only incriminating material was a private note book said to have been maintained by a part-time employee, containing unauthenticated entries and no independent corroboration. There was no seizure of clandestinely removed goods, no invoice evidence, and no evidence of raw materials consumed or goods manufactured and cleared to support the entries. The reasoning in earlier cases on clandestine removal was applied, namely that private records by themselves are not dependable unless supported by other evidence establishing actual production and removal.
Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on the basis of the private note book and the employee's statement alone, and the finding of clandestine removal failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded on the central question of proof of clandestine removal.
Ratio Decidendi: A private record containing unauthenticated entries, without independent corroborative evidence of manufacture, clearance, or material consumption, is insufficient by itself to prove clandestine removal.