Clandestine removal requires tangible corroborative evidence; private records and unverified statements were held insufficient to sustain the demand.

Clandestine removal under central excise law must be proved by reliable, corroborated and tangible evidence; a private register, unsupported statements and presumptive inferences are insufficient. The demand was based mainly on entries lacking invoice and vehicle details, without enquiry at the consignee's end and without supporting proof of raw material purchases, manufacture, excess electricity consumption, stock shortage or corroborative buyer and seller statements. On that evidentiary record, the allegation was not established, the demand could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegation of clandestine removal was sustainable on the basis of a private register and uncorroborated statements.

Analysis: The demand was founded mainly on a register containing entries without invoice numbers or vehicle numbers, and no enquiry was made at the consignee's end. The evidentiary material was not supported by proof of raw material purchase, manufacture, excess electricity consumption, shortage of stock, or any corroborative statement from buyers or sellers. The reasoning applied was that clandestine removal must be established by concrete and tangible evidence, not by inferences or assumptions drawn from incomplete records.

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

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine removal under central excise law must be proved by reliable, corroborated and tangible evidence, and cannot rest merely on private records, unsupported statements or presumptive inferences.

---