Private notebook evidence alone cannot prove clandestine removal of excisable goods without independent corroboration.

A private notebook with unauthenticated, overwritten and corrected entries could not, by itself, prove clandestine removal of excisable goods. The record was maintained by labourers, and no corroborative evidence was produced from raw material consumption, actual manufacture, packing, clearance, stock variation or other independent records. In the absence of supporting material, the alleged clandestine manufacture and removal was not established, so the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable. The impugned order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a private notebook seized from a contractor, containing unauthenticated and overwritten entries, was sufficient to establish clandestine removal of excisable goods and sustain demand of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The only basis for the demand was the private notebook. The entries relied upon were found to be irregular, several figures were not authenticated, there were overwritings and corrections, and the record was maintained by labourers rather than by the contractor personally. No corroborative evidence was produced from raw material consumption, actual manufacture, packing, clearance, stock discrepancy, or other independent records. In the absence of supporting material, the notebook was not a dependable record to prove clandestine manufacture and removal.

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

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A private and uncorroborated record with unauthenticated entries and overwritings cannot, by itself, prove clandestine removal of excisable goods.

---