Clandestine removal requires positive evidence; suspicion and assumptions cannot replace proof, so the demand was set aside.

Allegations of clandestine removal and shortage cannot be sustained without positive evidence. The Tribunal found that Revenue had not produced material proof of clandestine clearance, and accepted the surrounding facts and the explanation for delayed entries as sufficient to rebut the inference drawn by the lower authorities. It further held that mere suspicion or assumptions cannot substitute for proof. On that basis, the allegation of clandestine removal was not established and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegations of clandestine removal and shortage could be sustained in the absence of positive evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not brought on record any positive evidence to support the allegation of clandestine clearance. The surrounding facts and the explanation offered for the entries not having been made in time were accepted as sufficient to displace the inference drawn by the lower authorities. The Tribunal also relied on the cited decisions to hold that mere suspicion or assumptions could not replace proof.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not established, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---