Clandestine removal demands concrete evidence, and estimated electricity use and private notes were held insufficient here.

A charge of clandestine manufacture and removal must be supported by cogent, concrete and tangible evidence. Where the Department relies mainly on electricity consumption patterns, rough private notes and presumptions, without proving excess raw material procurement, excess production, actual clandestine clearance or any reliable seized record, the allegation fails. Estimated power consumption and suspicion alone are insufficient to establish suppressed production or clandestine removal. On the facts recorded, the demand based on alleged clandestine removal was not sustained and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal could be sustained on the basis of electricity consumption pattern, private records and presumptions in the absence of cogent evidence.

Analysis: The Department did not produce concrete evidence of excess procurement of raw material, excess production, or actual clandestine clearance. The material relied upon rested largely on assumptions regarding electricity consumption and on rough private notes, without any proved consumption norm, experimental basis, or reliable seized record showing suppressed production. In a charge of clandestine removal, the burden lies on the Department, and adverse findings cannot be drawn merely from suspicion, presumption, or estimated power consumption.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine removal was not proved, and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the demand based on alleged clandestine removal was not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by cogent, concrete and tangible evidence, and cannot rest solely on presumption, suspicion, or electricity consumption estimates.

---