Private diary entries alone cannot prove clandestine removal without corroborative evidence of unrecorded manufacture or clearances.

Private diary entries, by themselves, were insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods where the department produced no corroborative evidence of unaccounted raw material procurement, unrecorded production, actual removal, or buyer confirmation. The appellant's explanation that the diary was only a planning record was not displaced by independent proof. On these facts, the allegation of clandestine removal was not proved, and the demand and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether clandestine removal of excisable goods was established on the basis of private diary entries alone, in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The only material relied upon to support the demand was an entry in a private diary seized from the premises. The appellant explained the diary as a plan record for manufacture and clearances. No further evidence was brought on record to show unaccounted procurement of raw materials, unrecorded manufacture, actual removal, or corroboration from buyers or customers. On these facts, the private entries did not satisfactorily establish clandestine manufacture and removal.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved. The demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded.

---