Clandestine removal needs corroborative proof; retracted statements and private records alone could not sustain duty or penalties.

Private records and seized goods created suspicion of clandestine removal, but suspicion alone was insufficient to sustain duty demand where the alleged clearances were not proved by solid corroborative evidence. Retracted statements and customer confirmations that goods were received only as invoiced undermined the Revenue's case, and the entries in the records remained an assumption rather than proof of removal of dutiable goods. In the absence of reliable evidence establishing evasion with certainty, the duty demand could not be sustained, and the associated penalties on the assessee and connected persons also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty, interest, and penalties could be sustained on the basis of seized private records, uncorroborated statements, and suspicion that dutiable cross reel hank yarn had been cleared as non-dutiable plain reel hank yarn.

Analysis: The seized goods and private records created suspicion, but the surrounding evidence did not establish clandestine removal with certainty. The statements relied upon were immediately retracted, and the customers examined stated that they had received goods only as per invoice. In the absence of solid corroborative evidence, the burden resting on the Revenue to prove evasion was not discharged. The conclusion that the entries denoted dutiable goods remained an assumption and not proof.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was not sustainable, and the penalties imposed on the assessee and the connected persons also could not survive.

---