Clandestine removal demands need concrete corroboration; private registers alone were insufficient, though confiscation of excess goods was upheld.

Private registers and alleged clandestine clearances could not, by themselves, sustain a duty demand where the author of the records was not identified and no independent corroboration was obtained; the demand and connected penalty were set aside. The charge of clandestine removal requires concrete and tangible evidence, not assumptions drawn only from unverified entries. By contrast, confiscation and redemption fine on seized excess goods were upheld on the facts recorded, and the appeal succeeded only in part.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demand founded on private registers and alleged clandestine clearances could be sustained in the absence of the author's explanation and independent corroboration; (ii) Whether confiscation and redemption fine on the seized excess goods were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand founded on private registers and alleged clandestine clearances could be sustained in the absence of the author's explanation and independent corroboration.

Analysis: The demand was based on registers recovered from the premises and on inferences drawn from entries said to reflect production and sales not found in statutory records. The recorded evidence did not establish who authored the registers, and no explanation from the author was obtained. In the absence of such clarification, the registers were treated as resting on assumption and presumption. The charge of clandestine removal required concrete and tangible evidence, and not a case built only on inference.

Conclusion: The duty demand and the connected penalty on the assessee were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and redemption fine on the seized excess goods were sustainable.

Analysis: The seized goods were not satisfactorily shown to be proved production of the day, but the seizure and confiscation were not disturbed on the facts recorded.

Conclusion: Confiscation and redemption fine were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal duty demand issue, but the confiscation and redemption fine on the seized goods were maintained, resulting in a partly allowed appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for clandestine removal cannot be sustained merely on private records and presumptions; it must rest on concrete and tangible evidence with proper corroboration.

---